Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Should Probably clear the air on who our characters were as well!
I am Aulus, the Mage/Cleric

Wrex = Dungeon Master
LordBucket = Audial, half-elven Fighter/Mage/Cleric
Kagus = Yasied/Badgerman
BFEL = Aulus, half-elven Cleric/Mage
The Ensorceler =  Oblio, gnome illusionist/thief, with a sheep named Sheep.
Caellath = Nathanael, Human Fighter
scriver = Thibauld Beadocaf, human cavalier with a mule
GlyphGryph = James of Donal, dwarf

Any corrections to the above? Also...who am I missing? I thought we had 9 players total, and I only count 7.

I did not include characters I did not know of the existence of in the loot list.

...yeah. Loot distribution is likely to be a problem the way we have players coming and going. There are some players who never even saw certain other players online. It's going to be difficult to convince people to give equal shares of loot that they personally collected to players they never saw present in game.

The gnome did help in our fight against the enormous mob of brigands in the open field

...ok, but to my recollection, that was a previous "quest arc" to the loot presently being discussed. With people coming and going throughout the day, I'm not sure it's reasonable to suggest that "everybody gets equal shares of everything." I don't see anyone suggesting that James should get a share of the treasure that was found from the brigands in the open field, for example. He wasn't there for it.

I personally have no issue with an equal division amongst all members.  I do have an issue with having a democratic hoodwinking where the currently-online members held a majority vote to exclude those not present for the voting.  That's really all that I wanted to have cleared up.

Really? So...you mean that James should get an equal share of the loot from the portion of the adventure that ended hours before he ever showed up?

It's not as simple as some of you are making it. Honestly, I think Loot distribution at the sole discretion of players who are present with the loot is the best way to handle this. If people are going to be coming and going as we play...that's going to create all sorts of problems. If somebody is present for the start of an adventure but leaves in the middle, do they get a loot share? If somebody shows up at the end do they get a share? If somebody is present for the beginning five minutes before anything happens...then has to leave for whatever reason missing the entire adventure, then shows up again in the last five minutes, do they get a share? What about the inconvenience of having to wait? At the end of last session, some players wanted to go shopping for equipment upgrades and level characters, but the decision was made to wait to not distribute loot pending feedback from absent players. Consequently xp for treasure was not given out, and we didn't have funds to buy equipment.

why weren't my sheep and the mule used as pack animals?

Because...we kind of forgot about the sheep when you left. And the mule...that was Beadocaf's mule...was he even present in the cave? I thought he left early. The way I remember it, Aulus, James, Nathanael, Yasied and Aduial were the only people present when the electrum hoard was carried out.

Which actually brings up another point: I'd like to propose that No DM running of characters for absent players. Absent characters 'disappear' from the world when their player leaves. I realize this is 'unrealistic' but it solves a lot of problems. For example, is it reasonable for a player who isn't even present to get xp and treasure? What if a player being run by the DM dies? Or has something important stolen? Is it going to be reasonable for them to come back and find out that they're dead or missing a spellbook even though they weren't even present when it happened? On the other hand, it's not really reasonable to have them be granted contractual immortality by having the DM 'keep them alive' to avoid the unfairness of them dying while absent.

Or for a specific example from last night, nobody brought the gnome's sheep with us. We left it in the caves. So will our gnome "log back in" to see that his pack animal and all the loot it carried from the previous quest arc is gone? For that matter, what if we'd forgotten about him and left him too? Would he be a slave right now?

On that note, was the drow's extremely fancy pendant-thing included in the assorted jewelry? I recall our only female party member (the half-elven fighter, magic-user and cleric multiclass) picked it up.

Aduial kept that. Since so far as I know, at no point did any of you ever even set foot in the upstairs throneroom she found it in, you're going to have a difficult time convincing her to give it up. It's pretty and she likes pretty.

half-dead gnome we hid inside the pile of coins.

And in the interest of avoiding future problems related to that, I propose we implement a new unconsciousness rule: if a character who loses consciousness is restored to 1hp, they immediately regain consciousness and are able to resume play, but they lose all memorized spells and fight with a -2 to-hit penalty until they've had (8 hours or a night of) rest. This reduces the incentive for players rendered unconscious to leave because they're unconscious and can't play for hours of gameplay.

Donkeyknight is the one most in need of it, having 2500 xp to to before I even reach level one

Ok, but at least two party members that I know of have a "multiply xp received by 1/3" penalty and need 4500xp for their first levelup.

Kagus did not vote for you getting Ensorceler's share - he voted for an equal share among everyone.

Unfortuantely Mibbit appears to not support logging, and the scrollback buffer is very small. I tried saving the gamelog and didn't find any way to collect more than about 5 minutes worth of chat. That's going to be a problem if we can't easily go back and check what was said by whom. Therefore I propose we stop using Mibbit and use a chat host that supports chat logging. It's terribly inconvenient to not be able to check the logs and confirm what was said and who was present for what

if all those getting 500 instead took 450, then we could at the very least give 250 to
the obsessively brave cavalier, if only to help him reach level 1 all the quicker.

If that's enough to allow you to levelup, I'm in favor.

[Caellath]

Aduial kept that. Since so far as I know, at no point did any of you ever even set foot in the upstairs throneroom she found it in, you're going to have a difficult time convincing her to give it up. It's pretty and she likes pretty.

Don't worry, not making a fuss over a pendant. I can't hit people with it.

...ok, but to my recollection, that was a previous "quest arc" to the loot presently being discussed. With people coming and going throughout the day, I'm not sure it's reasonable to suggest that "everybody gets equal shares of everything." I don't see anyone suggesting that James should get a share of the treasure that was found from the brigands in the open field, for example. He wasn't there for it.

We only got pocket change from that and most of the gold would probably come from selling the swords scriver's cavalier put on the back of his mule, which he said he'd sell and share the obtained gold.  Also, Oblio was still present in the cave part or quest arc. He helped us take down a guard and then took a shot to the head from the drow.

[Kagus]

Honestly, I think Loot distribution at the sole discretion of players who are present with the loot is the best way to handle this.

That would mean that I, who was there from the start of the game, killed 4 brigands in the first battle, was the other part who killed one of the guards outside the cave entrance, and did 15 points of damage to the drow, would get no say in the share of the loot because I had to bow out just after killing the git thanks to it having been 2 AM my time and my needing to get up early the next morning for a doctor's appointment.

So yeah, the only reason I was "present" when the loot was being carried out was because Wrex had taken over my character.


Also, wasn't Sheep the sheep tied up outside the cave, along with Runonandonandon the mule?  He'd tried riding it into the cave, but I protested loudly to that action, based on my assumption of sheeply stealth.  Or, rather, lack thereof.

[scriver]

The part of with the bandit charge was not a different "quest arc" - it was the direct lead up to the bandit cave part. He was also present in the cave, unlike my Beadocáf.

And your idea of characters just "popping out of existance" whenever the player leaves is unworkable. I agree that it might be bad to have equal shares regardless of if people were present (hence why I de-nominated Donkeyknight from a share), but one should at least be considered what people had done so far and if the players were present throughout the "quest arc", and not just if they are present at the final reward. Oblio's magics won the fight we couldn't have won in a straight fight, both Oblio and Badgerman were present throughout the cavecrawling up until after the drow - which Badgerman helped defeat. That they shouldn't get a share of the treasure because real life called them out of the game at that point is ridiculous - especially since the only way to gain XP is to gain loot. Consider the opposite - what if I had popped back in after everyone was gone, hauled that treasure back to the city on my mule, and taken all of the loot for myself, simply because there was noone else there at the time? Hardly fair or fun for anyone but me.

And I'm not saying this completely out of unselfishness either. Being Europeans, there is a pretty big chance I (and Kagus and any other Europeans) will join up earlier during the day and also leave earlier during the night. I would hate to actually have participated in the dungeoncrawling at a future session, then having to leave at three in the morning because I was too tired to go on, and then find my character wouldn't get any share because I wasn't playing at the time you reached the rewards - despite that my character should have been with you all along. I'd much rather have the DM play my character at that point.

Anyway. About Mibbit - you can use any irc client you wish (I use chatzilla), I only linked to Mibbit because it was the first irc I used and I think it is an easy client to learn. I also logged the whole session (or as far as I was logged in - I lurked for a long while, but I can't remember exactly when I quit).

And lastly -

Wrex = Dungeon Master
LordBucket = Audial, half-elven Fighter/Mage/Cleric
Kagus = Yasied/Badgerman
BFEL = Aulus, half-elven Fighter/Mage/Cleric
The Ensorceler =  Oblio, gnome illusionist/thief, with a sheep named Sheep.
Caellath = Nathanael, Human Fighter
scriver = Thibauld Beadocaf, human cavalier with a mule
GlyphGryph = James of Donal, dwarf

Any corrections to the above? Also...who am I missing? I thought we had 9 players total, and I only count 7.

There were several players that didn't show up. And the mule's name is Rocinante

[GlyphGryph]

Unfortuantely Mibbit appears to not support logging, and the scrollback buffer is very small. I tried saving the gamelog and didn't find any way to collect more than about 5 minutes worth of chat. That's going to be a problem if we can't easily go back and check what was said by whom. Therefore I propose we stop using Mibbit and use a chat host that supports chat logging. It's terribly inconvenient to not be able to check the logs and confirm what was said and who was present for what

I can post full logs of my time there - my client logs everything to file automatically.

I think what we should do in this case, since there were apparently more people involved than I had any idea of, is to do flat equal 5-shares-a-piece of "generic loot", with special items claimable by those who are there in exchange for one of their shares (so players who don't get a special item get a bit more cash). If people then want to distribute some of their "share"s they can. This is for the current session only and I don't expect it to carry forward.

[LordBucket]

your idea of characters just "popping out of existance" whenever the player leaves is unworkable. I agree that it might be bad to have equal shares regardless of if people were present

Disappear on logout isn't for loot distribution. It's to keep characters from dying when they're not online. Again, consider Kagus. What if his character died while Wrex was running him? What about the sheep? Is that gone because we forgot about him? I think these issues are vastly more unfair than any of the loot issues we're discussing.

The part of with the bandit charge was not a different "quest arc" -
it was the direct lead up to the bandit cave part.

DM distributed xp and we had downtime where we decided what to do next. It was a pausing/stopping point, related to the cave squence only by narrative.

That would mean that I, who was there from the start of the game, killed 4 brigands in the first battle, was the other part who killed one of the guards outside the cave entrance, and did 15 points of damage to the drow, would get no say in the share of the loot because I had to bow out just after killing the git thanks to it having been 2 AM my time and my needing to get up early the next morning for a doctor's appointment.

Correct.

If you don't like it...suggest an alternative. "People present" is a very clear, easily definable criteria. It's something that we can look at and all agree on whether it's true.

"Perceived value of contribution" is not something everyone will always agree on. You killed one guard and did 15 points of damage to the Drow. I determined the location of the treasure by getting a relative-to-entrance direction from the map, I dispatched 12 guards, I kept the gnome from dying, I was the one who first engaged the Drow, and I bluffed the lone lieutenant into leaving us alone.

Shall I claim that I "did more" and therefore deserve more treasure?

I'm not making that claim, but I'm pointing that if we start arguing about who did more...that's likely to end in disagreement and drama.

what if I had popped back in after everyone was gone, hauled that treasure back to the city on my mule, and taken all of the loot for myself, simply because there was noone else there at the time? Hardly fair or fun for anyone but me.

Honestly? That seems pretty reasonable to me. And that exact situation is extremely likely to come up at some point.

Incidentally...I'm suggesting that people who are present decide loot distribution. Not that they must always insist on keeping everything for themselves, and not necessarily they they divide it evenly. If people want to decide that, hey...we just found a +1 morning star, and player X who isn't here is the only one of us proficient in morning stars...let's hang onto it and give it him him when he's next on rather than selling it for the gold...yeah, that's completely reasonable. If we want to choose to give somebody more loot to level them up, I'm ok with that.

Keep in mind that we're only even having this discussion because GlyphGlyph posted the loot. We could have just taken it and not told anyone, and none of you would know. And yet we have people insulting GlpyphGlyph over it, when he's the one who reported the loot here in the thread, and he genuinely didn't know about some people in the discussion right now because they logged off before he logged on.

There may be problems with what I'm proposing, but it's a definite criteria, and if we agree on it at least everyone will know what to expect. I'm more interested in reducing loot drama than ensuring that everyone gets an even share. The game needs to be fun. Angry people is not fun. If somebody misses out on some gold, but they're not angry because they knew in advance it was going to happen...that seems an acceptable result to me.

In any case, if you don't like the proposal...that's fine. What do you suggest instead? Does anyone have a better solution?

Being Europeans, there is a pretty big chance I (and Kagus and any other Europeans) will join up earlier during the day and also leave earlier during the night.

Ok, but presumably that means you'll be present for earlier loot that people on later might miss. Again: nobody's suggesting James receive treasure from before he was online, why should you be entitled to treasure after you logged off?

wasn't Sheep the sheep tied up outside the cave, along with Runonandonandon the mule?

I don't know. I don't have a log to check. But if so...then presumably he's still there, or has been eaten and the remaining bandits collected all the loot he was carrying because nobody untied him and brought him back to town with us. Which...again, is kind of a problem that is more important to resolve than the loot issue. Characters in-game while players are absent is conducive to all sorts of problems.

[BFEL]

Well first off, LordBucket my character is just a Cleric/Mage. Not a Fighter/Cleric/Mage. The cleric part already lets me wear heavy armor and use decent melee weapons, so I feel adding a fighter class to the mix would just be redundant.

Second I support the "Less loot drama" idea. Granted I have no idea how to go about that, but when it is decided, I'm for it

Also about the maces from the drow, they were heavily decorated, but do they have any actual combat bonuses over say the mace my character is currently using? Sounded to me like they were just normal maces made really flashy, and not worth getting too worked up about or replacing things for.

[LordBucket]

Well first off, LordBucket my character is just a Cleric/Mage. Not a Fighter/Cleric/Mage.

Fixed.

Also about the maces from the drow, they were heavily decorated, but do they have any actual combat bonuses

Probably not. I suppose it's possible they might be artisan quality items or something and the mail was elven, but I cast detect magic on the drow's gear and none of it was enchanted.

[The Ensorceler]

     How about something like this: quest arcs are well defined and loot from a given quest arc is divided up among anyone and everyone who participated based on their contributions to any of that arc. This would mean that since Oblio was instrumental in gaining the bandit's map, he gets a fairly large stake in this arc, about 7-9 shares, while others in the battle get, say, 3-5 shares, depending. However,as more and more is done along this arc, without adjusting the awarding of shares, these become devalued as both the total number of shares and the total amount of treasure goes up, meaning that you earn loot based on number of times assisted, and how much you assisted each time. (Additionally, if this is agreed to, 20% of treasure could be divided evenly among any contributors with at least one share to provide a base 'spending money' to allow low-level players to afford room, board, and equipment.)
     Semi-permanent player groups could even have 'contracts' requiring a donation of one share of treasure per some number of shares earned or by voluntary donation, with hierarchy determined by monetary contribution either way.

Also, shame on you people for both ignoring the loadbearing capacity of a sheep and for abandoning Sheep (along with his load of falchions (that was me, not scriver/Beadocaf)).

[LordBucket]

How about something like this: quest arcs are well defined and loot from a given quest arc is
divided up among anyone and everyone who participated based on their contributions to any of that arc.

1) That will leave us arguing over who contributed the most every single time there's treasure.

2) Apparently we don't all agree on what constitutes a quest arc. Maybe we need a better label: "Logical stopping points." For example, after the brigand battle on the open field, we stopped. Wrex awarded xp. We had downtime. We debated what to do next. We considered going back to town for a few days. We almost did. The open-field battle and the cave sequence were connected only by the fictional narrative. Connecting loot distribution to story creates problems.

For example, imagine players A, B and C are online and at The River. They find treasure and a map to the Warehouse. They divide the treasure among themselves. Player C logs off. Player D logs on. Players A, B and D proceed towards The Warehouse. On the way they're Ambushed by the Minions of The Warehouse. They kill them and loot their treasure.

At this point:
1) Is player C entitled to a vote/portion of the treasure found during The Ambush?
2) Is player D entitled to a vote/portion of the treasure found at The River?

Now, imagine that after The Ambush it's late, and we stop for the night. The following week we pick up and players D, E and F are present. D remembers they were going to The Warehouse, so the three of them proceed to The Warehouse, kill the boss, loot all the treasure and go back to town.

At this point, players A and B log on. They discover that D, E and F are distributing treasure found at The Warehouse...and demand a share. Do they get it? After all, they found the map. How do players E and F feel about this? They were the ones who did the entire dungeon, fought all the monsters and brought the treasure back to town, and they never saw players A and B as having any connection whatsoever to the loot they themselves found. Even if everyone agrees to share treasure, if you're giving out shares based on contribution...how can players A and B and players E and F possibly agree on who contributed more? They never saw each other online.


Simple solution: "Stuff you're online for, you have a say in. Stuff you're not online for, you don't. If people who are online and find stuff want to give it to people who are offline, they can. But those who are offline are not entitled to a portion or a vote for the distribution of stuff retrieved while they were offline."

[The Ensorceler]

So if I had stayed online while in a coma I'd have a right to the pile of treasure I located? This is just an example of weird border cases that still pop up with that rule. I hate to drag him into this mess, but... Wrex? Any ideas on resolving treasure division so everyone's happy?

[LordBucket]

So if I had stayed online while in a coma I'd have a right to the pile of treasure I located?
This is just an example of weird border cases that still pop up with that rule.

Not right to a share, right to input on how the loot is divided. Why does your character being unconscious change anything? You, the player would be there.

Why is that weird or a border case at all?

[GlyphGryph]

Conceivably, what you would want to do is convince the other players to argue for you to get a share on later loot they find. So when they divide it, you'll get a share. Pretty straightforward really.

[Wrex]

For refrences sake, you may wish to specify what times you are avalible, and if you would prefer to split off from the group, I have no objections, so long as you can provide for yourself and any henchmen and hirelings you choose to procure.

[GlyphGryph]

Okay, let's get votes from everyone on the following three proposals. These are the only ones I can see even approaching being sustainable:

(1)Up with communism! - Anyone who participated in any part of the adventure gets an equal share of the loot from the entire days adventures
Claiming specific special items gives up a portion of that share.

(2)I'm participating - Players get a portion of the entire loot pile for the entire adventure based on their time spend in the adventure.
Every unit of time (we'll say half an hour) is worth a share, and again - it can be sacrified by claiming an item instead.

(3)Possession is 9/10ths of the law - Loot is distributed evenly among those who are present and playing when it's retrieved. They may then choose to distribute the loot further among other members of the party if they so choose, in the manner they choose. This goes for the previous nights loot, and moving forward, with one notable exception: The players present can decide through majority vote of living present conscious players to NOT give a living present conscious player a share. Probably because they were previously a dick at some point.

(4) Give it to Caelleth - Give all the gold and items to Caelleth. Caelleth decides who gets what.

(5) Caelleth's Proposal - Stopgap to stop the arguing for today, but says nothing about future distributions
    Aduial: 4gp from the first combat; 500gp from the treasure's share, necklace pilfered from drow fop;
    Aulus: 500gp from the treasure's share;
    Nathanael: 17.5gp from corpses, loot from bandit leader and drow fop - well-kept longsword, large shield, chain mail, elven mail, two fancy-looking maces, one crossbow (?);
    Oblio: 18gp from the first combat; 500gp from the treasure's share;
    Yasied: Not sure about loot from the first combat; 500gp from the treasure's share;
    James: 500gp from the treasure's share;
    Beadocaf: Not sure about loot from the first combat; Not claiming a share of treasure.

My Votes Are:
1. No
2. No
3. Aye
4. Aye
5. Aye

The proposal with the most votes moves forwards. If (5) wins or ties, we distribute the loot as described for the previous session, and choose the next option for using as we continue. Option stands until majority votes to change.