Loot split question

[ZamielVanWeber]

So we had a good run deep into a bad man's lair and made off like bandits (84,548 gp to be precise). So time came to split it and this is where we ended.

So we have me, about to switch characters to an older one since a problem has been resolved. My current character took his share and will be heading off.

Player 1 who is using a temporary sub character and because of the situation is doing the head lifting. He took his share and will continue to dungeon's end.

Player 2's character died. His share was used to resurrect him and he took the remainder and left and introduced his new character.

So to be clear none of us were upset with its course of events. My concern is with the other 3 players:

Player 3 is rarely here and the last two times he was here to spent on online Pokémon TCG tournaments. He would have shown up last session but he bought a new copy of Omega Ruby and discovered he could not use Power Save on it and felt that was adequate reason not to come (although he had vowed to play OR if he came). I should also note he plays his Binded/KotSS like a warrior (the NPC class).

Player 4 is easily distracted and will sometimes distract others and, when is he there demands to be party leader and does a pretty awful job of it. However his recent non-attendance is entirely not his fault and given his tendency to get upset if he is not massively strong (which he is not given his Refusal to use buff spells as a divine gish) I recommended we give give a quarter since he generally tries and he is not showing because his family is forcing him into a poor work situation.

Player 5 is trying to return but has not showed in a year. Hopefully he will be back next session as his added damage output would be nice.

I am rethinking the distribution and wondering if we should not give a share to Player 4 so as to not aggrevate Player 3? Or am I just over thinking it.

[Crake]

If one person cannot show up, I think it's fair to give him a share, if another person refuses to show up, then they get nothing if you ask me.

[Deophaun]

Overthinking: Split the treasure based on who was expected to be there. When your long-time absentees show up, the DM can bring them up in experience and WBL to match, as their characters are assumed to be doing something else somewhere else, not an alcohol-induced coma.

[Krazzman]

In our weekend groups we had similar... problems.
Either our Wizard was absent or our Paladin and most often our Ranger. Everyone had the same XP but loot was distributed only to the people there. You missed the session you did not get the loot except for pure gold which we all pooled into a group-pot since every character (save for the beatsticks) had creation feats.

The end result is that we dropped that campaign and only play with everyone present (due to the Ranger and Paladin dropping the game permanently).

[LTwerewolf]

Overthinking: Split the treasure based on who was expected to be there. When your long-time absentees show up, the DM can bring them up in experience and WBL to match, as their characters are assumed to be doing something else somewhere else, not an alcohol-induced coma.

This. If they're almost never showing up, I don't see how they deserve loot. Those that can't show up aren't being punished for not showing up, simply not being rewarded. It's not the same thing. If their characters are also not getting xp (which they shouldn't be if they're not there), their characters are not getting stronger, but they're also not getting weaker.

[lytokk]

My thoughts, boot player 3, for starters. If he can't be bothered to game at the gaming table, then I really don't see the point in him staying around.

Players 4 and 5 are a little different. 4 wants to be there, despite his hangups, he wants to play. Player 5 is a long time absentee who also wants to be there.

Just split the treasure by the 3 who were there, and have the DM keep track of the split amount. So long as you're not going grossly over WBL, just level the absentee characters up when they are able to show. Either 1 level down or at the bottom of the level, depending on how close you are to levelling. Give them the increased wealth before the game where they can use it to spend on any items they may need, and set them free. I say keep them no more than 1 level behind because if they're playing a level 4 in a level 8 campaign, they aren't really going to be able to keep up.

[Grollub]

Almost every group I've been in, or talked to, split loot as follows: (with some minor variations)

1) Everyone Attending gets a full share

One I really like:

2) 1 share goes to a "Party Kitty" to be used for raise dead/remove curses/etc...

and very few use

3) 1 share goes to a "whoever isn't here" fund... ( I agree with the suggestion, of long term absentees, can deal with the GM on catching up )

[TheFurith]

I've always seen it as whoever's character is in attendance when the treasure/reward/whatever is given gets a share. Giving out loot based on things going on outside the game doesn't make any sense in the game. If the players bring nothing to the table, then don't bring them to the table and you won't have to worry about their loot share.

[Fizban]

Give 3 and 4 both a full share for simplicity. Number 3 should have been kicked by now and it sounds like 4 didn't participate in the dungeon (even if they wanted to their character wasn't actually there), but if you give to one you're gonna need to do both to avoid problems.

For the new or returning characters, just pump their wealth however much is needed. As long as everybody who's playing has the same amount of cash and it's at least WBL, things should be fine.

[Eldansyr77]

The players that participated in that little (bust) should get the money ... it is then up to them to share it out! and this gives motivation for other players to play?!

[ZamielVanWeber]

Player 3 is sort of stuck in the game at this point since the DM does not want to kick people out. Player's 2 and 4 were intially not supposed to be in it due to some issues the DM has had with them game wise in the past, but here they are.

[Zanos]

In my weekly games, if you don't play in the session the loot was acquired, you don't get a share of it when the treasure is split. Or XP. We keep track of who was around for what encounters.

[Thaneus]

Well in our group we go as follow:
Moneyloot goes to the group purse
Items will be distributed as seen "needs" bur the character who receives need to give the same itemclass to our group loot (receives weapon -> give another weapon)
exp will be handled as was there character present (encounter exp *0,75 none when not) -> was the player present (encounter exp full) -> was there good roleplay interaction (bonus 100-500 exp)

One obvious rouge tax is still present, since the rogue is the only one who can appraise all at least to DC15, has diplomacy, sense motive and bluff relevant high (about 10 Ranks), but he is not abusing it to hard, because he also has the highest expenses anyway. But his Ring-collection keeps on gaining size w/o us knowing how... or he is just good enough at i/rl bluffing.

Players who are not there for more then 4 consecutive session w/o explaining why, befall a mayor personal disaster which forces the character to leave. He wont be killed or anything its just the ingame explanation why the character leaves.

[Gnaeus]

Money is an IC resource. What would the characters do? If someone didn't do anything but stand around (because the player was playing a video game) then the guys who killed the monsters can say what to do with their treasure.

[Calthropstu]

When I gm, everyone is at same level. 1 character being overshadowed by the rest makes everything grossly skewed.

Party loot, however, is distributed however the players see fit.

And here we come to role playing.

Did any of these characters assist in getting the loot? If the answer is no, why on earth would your character simply give them money?

Would you give your friend 20 bucks for not being able to show up to work yesterday?

Now items are another story. If player 1 was a sword wielding paladin, and player 5 was an axe wielding barbarian, and you have a magic axe, I see no reason the axe couldn't be given to the barb to use.

Same with potions.

[Zanos]

Now items are another story. If player 1 was a sword wielding paladin, and player 5 was an axe wielding barbarian, and you have a magic axe, I see no reason the axe couldn't be given to the barb to use.

Same with potions.
We have a lot of people come in and out, so anything you want personally comes out of your share of the loot at half value, since that's what it would be sold for.

After all if we go on an adventure and get one 200k item as the reward, that's definitely not just getting handed to one person.

[nyjastul69]

When I'm DM it is strictly up to the players how they want to divvy up treasure. Typically magic items go to the most appropriate character, a party consensus is typically needed. Any important material component are separated and claimed by casters as part of their loot. The rest is divided equally. Any extra or unuseful items are sold and the loot divided equally. If there happen to be NPC's along, they typically get 1/2 share of loot and hand me down magic items.

[Calthropstu]

We have a lot of people come in and out, so anything you want personally comes out of your share of the loot at half value, since that's what it would be sold for.

After all if we go on an adventure and get one 200k item as the reward, that's definitely not just getting handed to one person.

Each group handles it differently.

I have seen it done that way too.
I once saw a party wizard use analyze dweaomer on a ring and, upon finding it to be a ring of air elemental command, say "ring of feather falling" and took it for himself.

The group I am with now does a "best fit for the party" / party loot approach. For instance, it's best for the psychic warrior and soulknife to have a great ac. We find a ring of protection +3. It goes to the psychic warrior, who has a +2. His +2 went to someone who had a +1. The +1 went to a char who had none. Anything we can't use goes to party loot.

No one seems unhappy with this so far.

[Deophaun]

The group I am with now does a "best fit for the party" / party loot approach. For instance, it's best for the psychic warrior and soulknife to have a great ac. We find a ring of protection +3. It goes to the psychic warrior, who has a +2. His +2 went to someone who had a +1. The +1 went to a char who had none. Anything we can't use goes to party loot.

No one seems unhappy with this so far.
The group I'm in does a hybrid. The people in need of AC get first dibs on that ring of protection. But, if they take it, they're in debt to the other members for its sale value; any loot payout they would receive in GP instead pays off their debt. Of course, if everyone is in debt to the party, then equal debts cancel out.

I've just seen too many games where one player has 90% of the gold value or people clung onto "useful" gear without regard to its value (Like a ring of regeneration. Hey! We found it, so it's free!) and then spent the game wondering why they weren't keeping up with the threats. It's because all the party's wealth is in a single +5 Shocking burst greatsword, ya daft gits.

In 4e that I GM for, I just went with inherent bonuses, partly because of that, but mostly to stop them from trying to buy +4 cloaks of charisma. You can lead a horse to the Adventurers' Vault, but you can't make it read it.

[Zanos]

Each group handles it differently.

I have seen it done that way too.
I once saw a party wizard use analyze dweaomer on a ring and, upon finding it to be a ring of air elemental command, say "ring of feather falling" and took it for himself.

The group I am with now does a "best fit for the party" / party loot approach. For instance, it's best for the psychic warrior and soulknife to have a great ac. We find a ring of protection +3. It goes to the psychic warrior, who has a +2. His +2 went to someone who had a +1. The +1 went to a char who had none. Anything we can't use goes to party loot.

No one seems unhappy with this so far.
Certainly, I'm not saying there's a wrong way to split loot, just explaining the logic behind how my group handles it.

I will say though that essentially stealing from party loot is kind of a jerk move.

[Calthropstu]

Certainly, I'm not saying there's a wrong way to split loot, just explaining the logic behind how my group handles it.

I will say though that essentially stealing from party loot is kind of a jerk move.

Oh yeah, it was ****ty.

To be fair though, it was an evil party.

Dealing with evil people.

The ring was ultimately stolen by the party rogue who ultimately sold it for the price of a ring of featherfall. We all thought it was hilarious. Many many notes were passed during that game. It was a very "everyone for themselves" game.

[Elkad]

Certainly, I'm not saying there's a wrong way to split loot, just explaining the logic behind how my group handles it.

I will say though that essentially stealing from party loot is kind of a jerk move.


It's PvP. Some tables are fine with that.

[Zanos]

Oh yeah, it was ****ty.

To be fair though, it was an evil party.

Dealing with evil people.

The ring was ultimately stolen by the party rogue who ultimately sold it for the price of a ring of featherfall. We all thought it was hilarious. Many many notes were passed during that game. It was a very "everyone for themselves" game.
I have a mostly evil group at the moment, although I'd like to think were more pragmatic. Screwing over the guys who you take watch shifts with is generally not the best idea. Him selling it for the cost of what he thought it was is pretty hilarious, though.

It's PvP. Some tables are fine with that.
True. When I've played it's usually with the stipulation that the party at least tenuously works together. PvP is very frequently more trouble than it's worth.

[Almagesto]

Almost every group I've been in, or talked to, split loot as follows: (with some minor variations)

1) Everyone Attending gets a full share

One I really like:

2) 1 share goes to a "Party Kitty" to be used for raise dead/remove curses/etc...

and very few use

3) 1 share goes to a "whoever isn't here" fund... ( I agree with the suggestion, of long term absentees, can deal with the GM on catching up )

Yes to this method. I would also suggest talking to player number 3. He should be honest about 2 things: (1) Is he going to come to the sessions? (2) Can he make a conscious effort to not be distracted during gaming sessions? If the answer to any of those questions is NO, then he shouldn't play with you anymore.

[Pugwampy]

Dont give gold to people who were not there . No play No pay .

Dont care if was jackpot day . Perhaps they will make a bigger effort next time. .

[Calthropstu]

Dont give gold to people who were not there . No play No pay .

Dont care if was jackpot day . Perhaps they will make a bigger effort next time. .

exceptions can be made. Let's say they were there for the first 5 sessions of a dungeon that the loot was with the boss and they missed a session for a work emergency or othe life incident. Not fair to exclude them just because they missed the one fight.

Likewise, it makes little sense to give a full share to the guy who joined for just that fight.

[Deophaun]

Dont care if was jackpot day . Perhaps they will make a bigger effort next time. .
Yes. People need to learn that the game comes before real life.

Sorry Jack, but you chose to be "on call" and go in to perform emergency surgery. And Gary, your daughter's twelve. She can take care of her own damn birthday party. Susan, what's more important, the Partnership, or rolling dice to pretend to kill evil wizards? Get your priorities straight.

[Pugwampy]

Thank you . Someone finally gets it .

Memories are the greatest commodity this life has to vomit up .

I will just throw this back in your face and say if MR real life considers this just a game then he wont mind not getting any fake gold coins . So no harm done .

[Calthropstu]

Thank you . Someone finally gets it .

Memories are the greatest commodity this life has to vomit up .

I will just throw this back in your face and say if MR real life considers this just a game then he wont mind not getting any fake gold coins . So no harm done .

I really hope this was sarcasm.

[Elkad]

True. When I've played it's usually with the stipulation that the party at least tenuously works together. PvP is very frequently more trouble than it's worth.

With the right group it's a huge addition to the game. Sure, you cooperate vs the bad guys, but you compete among yourselves as well.
The players have to be able to separate the game though.

[Pugwampy]

I really hope this was sarcasm.

Everyone has problems and everyone has no time . So make a choice . You have something better to do thats fine , but you have no right to cry for last session loot or xp .

A serious medical emergency probably means that person will be out for 6 months or a year so that does not count . You cannot use such an extreme situation as an example to paint me as a bad guy .

[Deophaun]

A serious medical emergency probably means that person will be out for 6 months or a year so that does not count . You cannot use such an extreme situation as an example to paint me as a bad guy .
Name me a surgeon that has been kept in the OR for six months to a year.

The fact remains, your position is to try to use loot to actively punish people who put their real lives first. That's messed up. The penalty for not playing the game is not playing the game. Unless, of course, your game is terrible. Then I can see why you would want something else.

[Pugwampy]

Name me a surgeon that has been kept in the OR for six months to a year.

I was talking about some poor shmo who got knocked over by an automobile , not the quack who is gleefully going to profit off his suffering .

Wow RPG money loss from a silly game session ...... some punishment .

[Deophaun]

I was talking about some poor shmo who got knocked over by an automobile , not the quack who is gleefully going to profit off his suffering .
So... you were using the victim of a car accident to paint yourself as the badguy, and then declared that you were being unfair to yourself? Is that it?

Wow RPG money loss from a silly game session ...... some punishment .
Again, you're the one that proposed that for that very reason. So, it seems like you need to sit down and have a long talk with yourself. Sort some issues out.

[Pugwampy]

Lemme rephrase .

Your real life and all its problems is not my problem , its my irritant . Your PC is just a lazy bum who wont make anything of itself . No one is obligated to give your PC a hand out .

My fake gold is reserved for hard working dice rollers who understand the concept of commitment .

[Deophaun]

Lemme rephrase .

Your real life and all its problems is not my problem , its my irritant
Thank you. My assessment of the situation has been confirmed as 100% correct.

[Zanos]

That's not a punishment. You reward characters that are there with xp and treasure. Characters that aren't there get out what they put into the game. Nothing. I'm not being spiteful to the player, and I'm not going to hold missing a session against them if they had a good reason.

[Deophaun]

That's not a punishment. You reward characters that are there with xp and treasure. Characters that aren't there get out what they put into the game. Nothing. I'm not being spiteful to the player, and I'm not going to hold missing a session against them if they had a good reason.
I see. So you do not believe then that withholding such loot would cause a player to "make a bigger effort next time?" Such a thing does not motivate you? You do not find the lives of your fellow players beyond the game to be an "irritant?" Great!

Why are you commenting on it, then?

[Quertus]

Who gets a share?

In-Game Logic
Was the character there?

Out of Game Logic
Was the character's life at risk? Did the character earn XP?

Balance Logic
Well, no, of course they don't get a share - but, they were off doing something else, which gave them exactly enough XP and gp to equal what the rest of the party has.

2e Drop-In Logic
Um... No. Why would you even ask such a question?

Evil 2e Thief Logic
Of course they get a share. How else can I earn XP for stealing from them?

My Logic
Shrug.

[Calthropstu]

Everyone has problems and everyone has no time . So make a choice . You have something better to do thats fine , but you have no right to cry for last session loot or xp .

A serious medical emergency probably means that person will be out for 6 months or a year so that does not count . You cannot use such an extreme situation as an example to paint me as a bad guy .

my choice as a gm: give them the xp.
My choice as a player: errr, do I want the fighter standing in front of my caster to have only a +1 sword because he missed a couple sessions, or do I want him to have that +2 flaming sword we just picked up so he can kill things faster?

RP wise, your character is fighting for his life. Every encounter is a chance to die. Anything he can do to keep on living, he's going to do. So yeah, that +2 flaming weapon is going to that paladin who just came back from vacation. Because it helps the party survive.

[Pugwampy]

Thats different . I have no control over what the party does with its loot . The players are welcome to keep it for their vacationing buddy . Hopefully he sticks around long enough to make good use of it .