Close Topic Options

The Split: Sharing The Loot

One of the interesting things about role-playing games is the reliance on conventions to come to grips with the world around the characters and to ensure harmony within the group itself. In this thread, let us discuss the convention of how groups deal with sharing treasure earned as a a group.

In a society used to at least a profession of equality, the general assumption with ad hoc groups I have been a part of is that loot will be, as much as is possible, split evenly amongst all party members. The general explanation is that all of the characters share the risks by being present, and that they are all expected to add their talents and abilities to the success of the expedition. This is not very realistic, as in any group, not all of the characters will have equal needs, abilities, or risks. To illustrate this, I will be referencing Dungeons & Dragons in general so that anyone familiar with the most wide-spread tabletop RP game may follow. The rogue/ thief, for instance, wears light armor and small weapons. In combat, his abilities come in bursts, if his backstabbing can be set up, often with the help of others. However, the entire party relies on his expertise to minimize the lethality of traps, gain passage through locked doors, or climb sheer surfaces to affix a rope to allow the rest of the group access to hard-to-reach areas. The rogue/ thief, therefore is exposed to higher risk and has skills entirely in demand for the group. Until the group has means to circumvent the hazards that are the task for a rogue/ thief, that character may be in a position to demand more than a single share of the treasure. When the group is beset by a horde of foes, the wizard may be able to bypass the hazard without harm with a single fireball. Should she not demand a larger share of the treasure for being the most effective in that situation?

Need may also skew the idea of equality in doling out treasure. Fighting types need a great deal of coin early on to get effective protection. Better armor, shields, and weaponry allow them to survive longer, reduce the demand for healing, and allow them to keep in front of enemies longer for the non-armored party members to contribute from the relative safety of the back ranks. It's almost foolish for the gangly wizard to demand coin the warrior can use to buy that plate armor that optimizes his defense. Afterwards, the tide turns to the casters, as their spells require expensive components and may cost money just to acquire the spells in general. Other classes like the barbarian may have no real need for treasure at all beyond a pittance for their personal upkeep, especially if the campaign world doesn't have magical item and weapon shops. Giving them a share equal to the others again seems foolish.

This gets compounded when magical items or extraordinary treasure is found. Some groups will roll off to see who gets to pick from a list of such treasures first; other groups use the "Calling dibs" Approach (For those not familiar, the first person to express interest in owning the item gets it). Other groups research the value of a magical item and apply that cost against their share of the treasure.

The furthest I have ever gone from the concept of equal shares was the time I played a rogue who was the "Financial handler" For the group. The group gave me all the wealth except for magical items, choosing the items most appropriate for the character who was to receive them. My character was the best at bartering, with deep connections with the Thieves' Guild, and they trusted that he would turn any treasure into piles and piles of coins. The group never wanted for anything, they stayed happy and well-equipped, and my rogue's bags of holdings were pretty full throughout. The group shared a common deity with the cleric (Torm) and I made sure the tithes were to the letter. Of course, some of the things the party wanted weren't gained legally, keeping the coin in those bags. But my character was always above the board, and the party never regretted having all the money pass through his hands. That being said, I don't think I'll ever see that in a group again.

So, how do you split the take? Do you have any humorous stories about your approaches in your groups?

Loot Sharing Split The

I stated this exact same thing to the party I'm playing a thief. My character does all the risk taking and even the major combat rolls and yet they seem to think the loot should be divided equally, weird.

The Split: Sharing The Loot Reviews RPG & Card Board

I've never had problems with sharing treasures because most of the time treasure wasn't the big reward but when we did get anything we divided it equally if we each fought. If someone did not join in the fight he wouldn't get anything.

Loot Sharing Split The

I can not recall having much of a problem with this in any Table Top Role-playing Games I have played in.

I have played a priest that worked on a fixed wage per adventure/mission. He never took any other treasure, just was a healer for hire.

Loot Sharing Split The

I haven't run into too many problems with groups squabbling over how to divide loot. Most often loot is divided as evenly as possible, and usually there is a portion set aside for a "Party fund." This seems to work best and once established I haven't witnessed a great deal of bickering.

Each character brings something to the pool of resources and assets, in general, and I think it would be overly cumbersome to try and determine just how much each party member contributed to a particular encounter and then translate that into share of the loot. Would you go based on overall damage dealt in terms of hit points? How much value do you give to spells and abilities that are used to "Buff" Up the other party members? Every encounter would involve trying to reduce each members contribution to an objective number and one could expect the entire thread or session degenerating into an argument over what those numbers look like.

The loot is often split evenly, but I think this comes with an understanding that it is impossible for everyone to contribute evenly during each encounter. In the long term though, each character does contribute more to some encounters and less to others to the point that it generally evens out in the end.

At the end of the day the adventuring group is not unlike a business venture in which all members have an equal share and the overall amount of gain is dependent on their ability to work together and pool their efforts to create a bit of a "Force multiplier" If you will, making it the sum of their efforts as a team rather than their individual contributions that make obtaining the loot possible in the first place. On their own the individual members can only accomplish so much, but their combined efforts allow them to accomplish a great deal more and it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively quantify what each member directly or indirectly contributes because some contributions are only effective when combined with the contributions of other members making it exceedingly complex to reduce it to an overall percentage that each member actually contributes in the end.

The fighter may have dished out more HP damage, but without the buffs from the spell caster this number may have been significantly lower or they themselves may have been knocked out of the fight before they could dish out that level of damage. So then how much value do you give to the spell caster over the fighter?

The spellcaster may have wiped out an encounter with a well placed fireball, but would the spellcaster have been be able to do that if the fighter hand't saved his hide once or twice in the past, or the rouge hadn't spotted the threat in the first place and prevented the party from being surprised?

I can see some disputes cropping up over how the party pool is handled though because each party member has needs that, if not fulfilled, can be detrimental to the group, but unfortunately there is usually a finite amount of resources and the party needs to determine what needs should take priority and they may disagree on this. The fighter may feel that having that plate mail armor is more important, but the spell caster may counter with the need for spell components. It is going to depend on the needs of the party at the time, rather than attempting to simplify it by declaring that the fighter contributes more overall. The fighter may contribute more overall but if the party finds itself in a situation where the spell component is going to go further in accomplishing their goal they would be foolish to spend the party funds on that armor.

Just my two cents anyway...

The Split: Sharing The Loot

Something that can dampen logic in early game play is having a sense of self over party. I have a thief that lost his bow because another character decided to open a door haphazardly. Up until then my character was killing off monsters that saved the rest of the party. Then when it was time to get my bow back with a little money they collected everyone was still saying it should be shared equally. That would have left my character without a bow and their characters without protection. Does that make any sense?

The Split Sharing Loot

Sometimes, a character really shouldn't get to choose their loot.

When I played D&D, a party I was in had a Paladin. Charming and Charismatic and the natural leader of the party, but not much for reason. Being a pious individual the only item he took was a ring, a cursed magic ring.

I was playing a magic user, and I had identified the ring as cursed. Telling the Paladin did nothing. I ended up Shocking Grasp and then laying a KO right hook, as a spell caster. The ring I promptly had destroyed before the Paladin came to.

I will leave you to figure out the details of a Paladin with a cursed ring.