Handing out treasure: DM choice or random?

[Garwain]

Hi guys,

Last night I ran a session and I had a few treasures prepared for the coming encounters. I had them all in a pouch, and decided to let the players choose as they'll end up with whatever I have prepared sooner or later anyway.

But immediately, this whole 'video game' feel returned as people are apparently custom to divide loot 'RPGMMO style'. (which is something 4e doesn't need more of anyway.)

So here's my question to other DMs: How do you handle treasure? Do you decide upfront and hand out as you wish? Do you select specific pieces that may or may not be tailored to certain characters? Do you allow players to present you a 'wish list'? Or do you keep it totally random? Or do you hand out only gold and let them buy anything reasonable?

[Fumble Jack]

Kind of depends on how familiar with the system my group of players would be. If they are quite acquainted with the system, I'll ask for a wish list, usually by tier.

If they aren't too familiar with the system or I have a mixed group of new and more veteran players, I try to do it randomly, trying to keep in mind what they may be going for with their character.

[Kurald Galain]

Random doesn't work well because about 90% of the items as printed are either only for one particular class or build that your party probably doesn't have, or simply outright useless.

Personally I prefer DM choice (plus inherent bonuses) over player choice, but that's a matter of taste. I find that giving players whatever items they want encourages min/maxing too much.

[DragonBaneDM]

I'm with the first two replies: It kinda seems a jerk move to dish out weapons and implements that don't line up with the feats and classes my players are taking.

That said, when it comes to armor, neck, or other slots I kinda go crazy since they aren't as build dependent. Like I'll give my buddy's Ranger a Frost Longbow, sure, but he's gonna have to buy Gloves of Ice and a Dragonshard for it because I'm too busy making an item card for a Robe of Eyes or something crazy like that for the Sorcerer.

[Laserlight]

I'm with the first two replies: It kinda seems a jerk move to dish out weapons and implements that don't line up with the feats and classes my players are taking.

Had a DM who was exactly that jerk. Nothing like fighting through multiple difficult encounters, hanging on to life by a thread, surviving only because the striker rolled a crit at the last moment, crawling into the treasure chamber and opening the chest to find...

Us: "Um...This is all druid stuff."
DM: "That's because a cult of druids lived here. That's the sort of thing they would have."
Us: "But...there's nothing here we can use. At all."
DM: "You can sell it."
Us: "We're on an exploration mission to a new island inhabited only by primitives. There won't be anyone to sell it to."
DM: /shrug "That's what fit the setting."


Which is not to say that you should necessary give them everything; but at least give them enough gold to buy that key item they need for their build.

[DragonBaneDM]

\
Us: "Um...This is all druid stuff."
DM: "That's because a cult of druids lived here. That's the sort of thing they would have."
Us: "But...there's nothing here we can use. At all."
DM: "You can sell it."
Us: "We're on an exploration mission to a new island inhabited only by primitives. There won't be anyone to sell it to."
DM: /shrug "That's what fit the setting."


There is a small part of me, the realism part, that wants to use this kind of logic, but it sorta goes against my number one rule of having fun during games. Like it makes SO much sense, but I just never did it.

[Tegu8788]

There's a way to balance that. If it's a group of bad guys that have stolen stuff, the. There is always stolen loot that could fit. If your party is reasonably balanced between roles and power sources, it shouldn't be hard to find a shaman implement among the druids, or a wand for a bard among wizards. Weapons aren't too hard to find.

So, while it might not be exactly what they want, I like to make sure they get something they can use.

And, there is always a ritual to move enchantments around. Get a few dozen of those scrolls, and you're fine.

[Dimers]

Us: "Um...This is all druid stuff."
DM: "That's because a cult of druids lived here. That's the sort of thing they would have."
Us: "But...there's nothing here we can use. At all."
DM: "You can sell it."
Us: "We're on an exploration mission to a new island inhabited only by primitives. There won't be anyone to sell it to."
DM: /shrug "That's what fit the setting."

Yeah, DM, you know what else druids use? -- rituals and ritual materials. Check the class features, it's there. How 'bout you throw us some residuum and an Enchant Item ritual book?

[Kurald Galain]

Us: "Um...This is all druid stuff."
DM: "That's because a cult of druids lived here. That's the sort of thing they would have."
Us: "But...there's nothing here we can use. At all."
DM: "You can sell it."
Us: "We're on an exploration mission to a new island inhabited only by primitives. There won't be anyone to sell it to."
DM: /shrug "That's what fit the setting."

That's silly. I would definitely include one druid-only item to make the point that these are druids, but there are plenty of items that a druid might have that are also usable by other classes. Deliberately giving the party loot that they cannot use in the first place should not be done in any game other than Paranoia.

[Burley]

That's silly. I would definitely include one druid-only item to make the point that these are druids, but there are plenty of items that a druid might have that are also usable by other classes. Deliberately giving the party loot that they cannot use in the first place should not be done in any game other than Paranoia.

I agree and, also, I don't! :smalltongue:

Sometimes, it's fun and interesting (in my experience as a DM and a player) to have something that nobody in the party can use. Let's say the party is a Battlemind, a Wizard, a Cleric and a Warlock and, I dunno, a Druid. (Lotsa Magic.) At the end of a dungeon, the each member of the party has found and claimed some neat thing-a-magic, except the Warlock. After beating the boss, they pick up his enchanted bow.
Now, nobody else has need of the bow. So, this could go a couple ways: The Wizard melts the Residuum out and turns it into a rod for the Warlock later that evening.
OR!
The Warlock decides to hold onto the bow, because why would the DM put an item in a dungeon that isn't important or useful? The Warlock does some research, finding out that the bow was once used my some really cool guy who got straight murdered by that boss from before. Now, the Warlock may want to talk to the DM about ways to use the bow as an implement for his spells (take a feat, or a multiclass, or whatever), or he may want to return it to the Kingdom of Coolguy.

I dunno. I just think that, especially in a game where XY&Z are made for AB&C, throwing a Q into the mix can create a really fun, interesting combination.

TL;DR version: Most players assume that nothing is random, because the DM is supposed to plan everything. So, doing something random lets the players run the game for a little while, making it more of a table-top RPG and less of a MMORPG. (I want a game, not a tour.)

[Calen]

There is a small part of me, the realism part, that wants to use this kind of logic, but it sorta goes against my number one rule of having fun during games. Like it makes SO much sense, but I just never did it.

The items I give out are usually something that one or more of my players can use. But I also tend to throw in items that don't fit, some of those are hidden plot things and others are my subtle attempt at getting them to improve their characters.

[Geoff]

but there are plenty of items that a druid might have that are also usable by other classes. Most of them, really, there are very few hard-coded class-specific items in 4e, if, indeed, there are any - the party might not use every property and power of every such item, but they can probably make some use of most/all of them. If the party has a ritual caster, and is 6th level or so, they can re-size items, move enchantments around, render items for residuum and make new ones or power rituals (the same basic equation as selling them).

So it's hardly critical that the DM make sure every item is ideal for or of use to someone in the party, let alone cleave to wish lists or the like. The game has ways of dealing with more 'realistic' treasure placement. Just keep in mind that if the DM persistently gives out 'useless' items, it makes sense to figure them as treasure of 1/5th value (since selling or residuum is the only thing they're good for). That is, if following wealth/level guidelines, at all...

[masteraleph]

I'll also add that it depends on levels of optimization and customization expected by the party. If your striker, for example, wants a Firewind Blade, then not getting one is a serious issue for Paragon Path and Epic Destiny, for example. It's hard to do Lasting Frost without a Frost Weapon, etc. If folks don't want that kind of thing, that's fine, but be aware that you may be messing with potential builds.

[Laserlight]

I agree and, also, I don't! :smalltongue:

Sometimes, it's fun and interesting (in my experience as a DM and a player) to have something that nobody in the party can use.

Oh, I have no problem with ONE thing. It was "the whole treasure trove is useless" that got our hackles up. Typical of that DM, who tended to say "No you can't" by reflex. That campaign died about three weeks later, to no one's regret.

I've handed my players "a small triangular stone" and let them toss it and turn it and speak to it and generally try everything to figure out what it did (which was "nothing"--it's just a rock).

I've also, in a steampunk setting, handed them a Maxim gun. No one tried it out until they were facing a large, irritable dinosaur who had plans to be carnivorous at the first opportunity. They set up the gun and cranked the handle and a little slip of paper came out with the following message: A stitch in time saves nine.
"And that", said I, "is your maxim."

[Palanan]

Since I was the "jerk" that Laserlight is ridiculing, let me fill in a couple details he left out.

One of the items in that druid's chest was a hefty chronicle left by the former residents. Laserlight's character held onto that chronicle, and later gave it as a gift to the captain of another ship--a decision that completely surprised both the captain and the DM running him, and which contributed tremendously to the captain's subsequent decision to ally with the PCs' faction.

It was a brilliant moment of roleplaying, and to me it was a great example of how player creativity can have a direct and powerful impact on the storyline. That encounter could have gone very, very poorly--but because of the character's decision to give the "useless" chronicle as a gift, he won the party a strong ally.

I should emphasize that I didn't plan that; it was the character's quick thinking and intuition that turned an old book into the best possible gift. The character made a decision that would have had a substantial effect on the rest of the storyline--which is the sort of roleplaying I enjoy. I like it when players surprise me in positive ways.




Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Deliberately giving the party loot that they cannot use in the first place should not be done in any game other than Paranoia.

I simply don't agree with this statement. There's no reason why absolutely every last thing in a campaign world should be perfectly geared to one small handful of people. That's a video-game attitude, where you gobble up little glowing swords or whatever like Pac-Man. Clearly there are players who prefer that style, but it's not an approach I enjoy--and apart from Laserlight and his son, I've never gamed with anyone who insisted on it.


Originally Posted by Burley
Most players assume that nothing is random, because the DM is supposed to plan everything. So, doing something random lets the players run the game for a little while, making it more of a table-top RPG and less of a MMORPG.

Thank you--this really nails the issue. Your first sentence neatly encapsulates the attitude of players who expect RPGs to play like video games, which seems to have been the case with Laserlight and his son.

I've been gaming for twenty-five years and only recently run into this expectation. The campaigns I've run and played in, not to mention nearly all the folks I've gamed with, have a completely different approach--including the assumption that the entire world is not there just for you, and that sometimes you can't always have what you want.

As one result, sometimes what you have might not seem like anything, but used inventively it opens doors you never knew were there. To me this is a natural consequence of setting players loose in a world, and as Burley points out it gives the players more of an impact on how the story unfolds. Clearly there are those who don't like this approach.



One other thing to mention: this was a 3.5 campaign, and Laserlight absolutely hated 3.5. He was complaining about the system from the very first meeting, and his comments became increasingly caustic with every session, which didn't contribute to a positive atmosphere.

[Burley]

I've been gaming for twenty-five years and only recently run into this expectation. The campaigns I've run and played in, not to mention nearly all the folks I've gamed with, have a completely different approach--including the assumption that the entire world is not there just for you, and that sometimes you can't always have what you want.

So, I work in a video game store and, without saying the name, understand that we are often ridiculed on television and the internet for giving small amounts of cash or store credit for something that somebody paid fifty to sixty US dollars for.
Suffice it to say that, in my D&D experience and my video game retailer experience, there is a strange and explosive growth of GAD (Gamer Attentiveness Disorder) in the past, I dunno, seven to ten years.

I'm quite guilty of it myself, to tell the truth. The problem is: We, as a culture, expect things to happen, immediately, if not instantaneously. We have boxes, only a few times larger than a matchbook, that will answer our questions, literally, with the press of a single button. If I want to play a new game, but don't feel like riding my bike 25 blocks to the store, I can just turn on my PS4, select the game I want and start playing, sometimes before it even finishes installing. I can even, for the low, low cost of $0.99, get better gear in that game so I can beat up the bad guys without having to put effort or thought into the game, rendering the effort and thought put into it by the developers somewhat obsolete.

That whole diatribe in mind, we, as gamers, are beginning to recognize this shift and we, as gamers, have spoken against it. Luckily for us, the developers of many RPGs are hearing us and offering penance. The shift from 3.5e to 4e was taken, by many, as a way of taking the effort and thought out of creating and playing a character. (In some ways, that is correct, in other ways, it is not. That's not the point.) D&D players, though, made their thoughts known enough that D&D Next (5e) takes ingredients from 3e, 3.5e and 4e, mixing them together into a system that rewards careful planning and selection at the chargen stage (like in 3e and 3.5e) and also offers more streamlined selections (which we see in the static bonuses of 4e and the simplified skill system). It's a system that rewards foresight, without stressing you to make decisions at level 1 that will haunt you ten levels later.
In the instance of having an item that does not immediately help your character, in 3e and 3.5e, our characters had no real rules-as-written way of making those items useful, requiring either to sell the object (a net loss in character wealth) or to change your character in a way that makes it useful (which is a large sacrifice of time, both in and out of the game). But, 4e gave us a cheap and quick rule of transferring an enchantment from one item to another, making those random items a bit more thought provoking. Sure, you can use the same +1 long sword you've been using, or you can ask the party/town wizard to transfer that +1 to the ornate (albeit mundane) khopesh you found on the half-charred remains of that body.

On the video game side, I must say, some games are giving us options to ameliorate this "random drop" system found in RPGs. I site the new Borderlands: The Presequel game. The franchise is based on the shoot-n-loot premise of randomized drops. In previous games, you simply ignore white weapons after level five and only look at green weapons to see if they have a higher than normal sell price. During the second and third playthrough, you may not even look at a drop unless it's purple.
However, in the new game, there is a mission requiring you to collect 50 white weapons and drop them in a location, offering you an orange Oz kit. If you have a handful of weapons that are lackluster or less powerful that your main equipment, rather than just selling them all, you have the option to grind them up into better equipment, sometimes using weapons of different types to create a weapon of an entirely different type.
This, as a gamer, offers me options other than selling or ignoring random drops. I means that I am putting more thought into what I pick up, sell, carry through long missions and store in the bank for later use. Sometimes, I'll come across a low-level green weapon, realize I have two other greens in my backpack, and two blues in my bank. Bingo-bango! I can grind them up to create a purple weapon with special abilities, and , most importantly, I didn't have to grind one single enemy fifty times to get it.


The tl;dr version (twice in one post. wow.) is that, while gaming has become a "tl;dr" sort of hobby with demand for immediate satisfaction or stfu;gtfo, we are seeing, in the hands of skilled and competent developers (or skilled and competent DMs, like myself (horn toot)) players have options which, we as gamers, have been asking for.

I sure hope that whole thing followed and flowed. I've been drinkin' a bit. :smallamused:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Burley
The tl;dr version (twice in one post. wow.)

I only counted one. Just sayin'.

:smallsmile:


Originally Posted by Burley
We have boxes, only a few times larger than a matchbook, that will answer our questions, literally, with the press of a single button.

I don't, actually.

I'm terribly old-fashioned. I read books.


Originally Posted by Burley
That whole diatribe in mind, we, as gamers, are beginning to recognize this shift and we, as gamers, have spoken against it.

A certain bloc of gamers, perhaps--but not all gamers, as my experience with that campaign sadly demonstrated.

Your diagnosis of GAD is spot-on, and the timeframe lines up well enough. I was involved in several long-running campaigns over that time, both as player and DM, and thankfully missed the incubation period for GAD.


Originally Posted by Burley
In the instance of having an item that does not immediately help your character, in 3e and 3.5e, our characters had no real rules-as-written way of making those items useful, requiring either to sell the object (a net loss in character wealth) or to change your character in a way that makes it useful (which is a large sacrifice of time, both in and out of the game).

I see your point in the broader context, but I would just add that part of this issue is the mindset that instantly classifies an item as immediately helpful or unhelpful, case closed. Sometimes it takes a while for an item's true value to be known--either through player creativity, as I mentioned above, or through some process of unlocking potential that isn't immediately apparent.

But as I've learned, there are players who simply don't have the patience for that process.


Originally Posted by Burley
On the video game side….

I'm sorry to say that after this point I didn't understand a thing you said, and it's not because of your evening libations. I haven't played a video game in years, and nothing like what you're describing.

Very old-fashioned. Books, remember.

[Laserlight]

Since I was the "jerk" that Laserlight is ridiculing, let me fill in a couple details he left out.

Well, no. This was from a group in Charlotteville in the early 80s. Back in a simpler time, when the DM was outright trying to kill you, but if you survived, the implicit promise was that you got glory and powerful magic items. Except when Jim the Blue was the DM, in which case, you didn't.

After that, our group washed our hands of D&D and moved to Champions, with someone else running it.

My best friend actually runs games like that too, but in Tom's case, we're not disappointed because we know going in that the battle is the thing, and any reward afterward will be dubious.
Also, in Tom's case, the end is the culmination of a single four hour session, once a year, rather than weeks of player time. When we get the "and so your whole battle was pointless" denouement, well, we haven't invested weeks of effort to get there.

[Scaleybob]

I've found the easiest way of handing out Magic Items in 4th is to say " You find an item of xx level - decide who gets it and what it is."

It may not be the most role-playing driven way of doing it but as a DM it means I don't have to worry about want lists, what some one needs for their class or who gets what. Items are effectively in a state of indeterminacy until they end up in the PC's hands.

I did it once as a joke in a session using a group of back-up characters and the players liked so much I simply started doing it all the time.

[Kurald Galain]

I simply don't agree with this statement. There's no reason why absolutely every last thing in a campaign world should be perfectly geared to one small handful of people. That's a video-game attitude, where you gobble up little glowing swords or whatever like Pac-Man. Clearly there are players who prefer that style, but it's not an approach I enjoy--and apart from Laserlight and his son, I've never gamed with anyone who insisted on it.

You've got your context backwards.

There was talk about a DM who only and exclusively gives loot that the PCs cannot use. I'm saying, don't do that. That doesn't mean that I suggest the exact opposite (i.e. that the players can always use every single thing) either, I think I was pretty clear on that.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Laserlight
Had a DM who was exactly that jerk. Nothing like fighting through multiple difficult encounters, hanging on to life by a thread, surviving only because the striker rolled a crit at the last moment, crawling into the treasure chamber and opening the chest to find...

Us: "Um...This is all druid stuff."
DM: "That's because a cult of druids lived here. That's the sort of thing they would have."
Us: "But...there's nothing here we can use. At all."
DM: "You can sell it."
Us: "We're on an exploration mission to a new island inhabited only by primitives. There won't be anyone to sell it to."
DM: /shrug "That's what fit the setting."

This is very clearly a player's-eye view of our last session from the seafaring campaign, complete with the campaign's opening premise. I'd be very surprised if your group in Charlottesville had an identical encounter on an identical seafaring mission.

That said, no point discussing it further.


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
There was talk about a DM who only and exclusively gives loot that the PCs cannot use.

I don't see your qualification in the quoted passage above. It hardly matters.

[Laserlight]

This is very clearly a player's-eye view of our last session from the seafaring campaign, complete with the campaign's opening premise. I'd be very surprised if your group in Charlottesville had an identical encounter on an identical seafaring mission.

Wooden Ships and Iron Men was quite popular with the player group at that point, which may have had something to do with it. And in your campaign, I only recall the players getting magic items on one occason--fighting the pseudo vikings, I think it was, certainly nothing to do with druids.
However, if you want to insist that the shoe fits, I'm not going to pry it off your foot.

[Laserlight]

Dragging this back onto topic--my opinion (which is free, and worth every penny):

If the character needs an item for his build, give it to him. Not necessarily the instant he levels and brings the build on line, but don't drag it out too long. If you aren't going to let him have what he needs for his build, then you shouldn't have accepted that character in the first place.

If it's not build-crucial but they worked hard to earn the loot? Then they should get a reward--and much of it should be usable. By "usable" I mean "something which adds to that character's preferred capabilities"--a +1 longsword, when he has a +3 greatspear and is optimized for polearms, is not "usable" in this sense, nor is something that adds +1 Diplomacy for the guy who has a CHA 8.
The item they get should not necessarily be "pick the top item from your wish list" but it should be something appropriate to their character. The thief wants gloves to improve her crits? It's okay to give her gloves that boost her Thievery. The barbarian has a +2 greataxe but doesn't have a ranged weapon? Hand him a magic throwing hammer, even if it's not on his list.
And then, in the next couple of adventures, give them a chance to use these things. "Rothgar, if you hadn't had that hammer, those archers would have massacred us!"
Toss in a random item or two for color, bearing in mind that the PCs will convert it to gold unless they have some pressing reason not to.

If it's something which just fell into their laps? Then random is fine.

But bear in mind: If you pick the loot, it takes your time. If the players pick the loot, it doesn't.

[Geoff]

I simply don't agree with this statement. There's no reason why absolutely every last thing in a campaign world should be perfectly geared to one small handful of people. There is one reason: they're the ones playing the game. Everything in the campaign is either something that is geared to them in the sense it's presented for them to have some kind of game-worthy interaction with, or it's backdrop - there for completeness or verisimilitude or atmosphere or however you want to think of it.

Take the example of the treasure trove full of stuff druids would have. The PCs had defeated druids, the treasure was geared towards them - specifically, towards what they had just done. If it had been a treasure trove full of transistors, that wouldn't have been geared towards the PCs' story, at all. ;P If it had been a treasure trove of stuff paladins would have, it could be geared to the players in the sense that it's a plot hook, that tells them there's an order of paladins that didn't do so well vs the druids...

I know that's not what you meant, but I felt like going off on a tangent. I actually agree as far as not needing to gear everything the players get to some optimization ideal.

[Kurald Galain]

If the character needs an item for his build, give it to him.
I'd argue that very few if any builds actually need an item; rather, many players expect to have (e.g.) a staff of ruin because of how powerful it is. That doesn't mean that players are entitled to receive everything they expect, though.

[Laserlight]

I'd argue that very few if any builds actually need an item; rather, many players expect to have (e.g.) a staff of ruin because of how powerful it is. That doesn't mean that players are entitled to receive everything they expect, though.

Concur. I was thinking of a Frostcheese build or something similar.

The main thing is managing expectations. I had a DM who asked for wish lists but couldn't keep track of them, so what we actually got was random; that was a bit annoying. On the other hand, if he'd said up front "Your loot list will be random" and given us a chance to buy a couple of items every level or two, that would have been fine.
If you give a character a reward that's absolutely useless, or blows up and kills him, then you're a jerk....if it's DnD. But if you're playing Paranoia, then it's all part of the game.

[Tegu8788]

I'm just gonna drop this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqz53d-fYL8) and this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0) here.

[Burley]

Can I be the Strawman? I think I did that and, also, he probably has cool straw-based powers.

[Tegu8788]

I know I've been all of them, at one point or another.

But I'm not here to point fingers, I'm here to spread insight, humor, and return things do the point.


Not every pile of loot needs to be perfect for the characters. But at least an item or two from a boss fight should be useable by characters. It may not be the exact thing they asked for, but the scout isn't going to be angry about a +2 bow even though he's a melee guy. It's still useful. If you have a party of exclusively martial characters that get a loot of exclusively caster items without anything to do with them (sell, trade, barter) regularly, that's gonna cause frustration. Inherent bonuses being a default would resolve many issues in my opinion as I prefer a magic loot light setting but that is just me. Loot can be a story key, and the ideas for using "trash" as gifts to alter interactions is beautiful. Every table is different, the ratio of "ideal" to "useable" to "no one can use this" items needs to be finessed, balanced, and that takes time, patience, and DM-player discussion.

[Laserlight]

Loot can be a story key, and the ideas for using "trash" as gifts to alter interactions is beautiful. Every table is different, the ratio of "ideal" to "useable" to "no one can use this" items needs to be finessed, balanced, and that takes time, patience, and DM-player discussion.

Bearing in mind that "usable" doesn't just mean "improves my damage-per-round rating." In the most recent campaign, the other half orc wanted booze, revenge on the lich who'd wiped out his village, and a helmet made from the skull of his enemy. My own half orc, by contrast, had the mentality of a six year old; he was happy when he found a kite and string.

Other characters have wanted Fame, Status, Power, Lore, Romance, 10% More Gold Than His Brother In Law, A Sign of Divine Approval, and so forth.

If you don't know what they'd consider a good reward, ask them. Or put up a big sign saying "I'm totally self-absorbed and don't really care what you want."

[Nicol Bolas]

Simple solution to the Druid issue: Give them five times the recommended value of Druid-only magic items.

They sell/break them down and get an amount of magic items equal to what would be normal for their level, except it feels like a huge haul.