Print

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

[Caellath]

The fourth option (Caellath decides) would hardly be appropriate, especially if I decide to strike on my own or create a different party with someone.

[GlyphGryph]

And that sort of response is exactly why I proposed it. Feel free to say 'nay', though - just cast your votes.

[BFEL]

1. Nay
2. Nay
3. Aye
4. Nay
5. Aye-ish (depends on who Beadocaf is in this, is he the gnome? Because the gnome didn't really do anything while I was on but get shot.)

[Caellath]

After you got online, the gnome (Oblio) did help us take down a guard and a few minutes after we got into the cave he took a shot to the head which got him unconscious for a long, long time. Beadocaf is scriver's Cavalier.

And I support my stopgap option. Though I'm adding to my loot whatever the guard Nathanael killed had on him, which means banded armor and a two-handed sword.

[Kagus]

1. Aye (least opportunity for squabbling or, indeed, having anything to say.  Only real reason to say no to this is personal greed)
2. Nay (way too much to try and keep track of, plus it opens itself up to a great deal of squabbling as to what exactly constitutes a "share")
3. Nay (I think we've already proven that people can be forgetful, and if this discussion is any sign, also avaricious.  Having a confused democracy based on that seems a poor idea)
4. Aye (because.)
5. Aye (if only to stop the bickering.  And if no one else will go for the alternative I proposed with shaving off 250 for the cavalier, then I'll just have to split my own earnings)

[The Ensorceler]

My votes are
1.Provisionally yes, but it probably shouldn't apply to separate player groups/parties as those could theoretically work at cross purposes.
2.Not particularly attractive to people who are hit by unexpected circumstances, so in the interests of fairness, I'll vote no.
3.This could work, and if people gang up, start a rival group and take your own missions. Yes?
4.Calleth seems impartial to me.
5.This looks like everyone, but if it isn't, I'll try to compensate them out of the swords if I ever get those back and my own share regardless. This also applies to Beadocaf (subject to scrivers objections). Yes.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I primarily included option 3 because, lets be honest - there's a good chance some of us could start operating at cross purposes at some point. And if opposing teams are both present and playing when loot is retrieved, there's probably going to be an actual altercation until that is no longer true, heh. It also works the best with people splitting up.

I really have the feeling option (1) is going turn into even more fighting as people talk about how unfair it is that someone who only played an hour in another group on another adventure gets a share of THEIR huge amount of treasure, people will back out, and we'll be back to square one. But if people want to do it for as long as it works, fine. But there really isn't a way to do this with seperate groups and parties, as there is likely to be at least some overlap.

In summary: Ensorceler, provide more firm responses! We got one yes, one no, and a bunch of "....yes?"es.

[LordBucket]

(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.

It concerns me that you've modified the proposal I've spent the past few pages arguing for.

Would you remove the "oops, you're unconscious you don't get a vote" clause you put in there? It was specifically discussed that unconscious characters still participate if their player is present. The "living" clause I suppose is fine but redundant, since if your character is dead, you're not really a player anymore.

Also, shares will not always be even. The point is not that "everyone online gets even shares" but rather "people online decide." For example: Nathanael's elven mail is probably worth several thousand gold, but I'm not suggesting or requiring that he receive a smaller share of coins because of that. Unequal distribution is going to happen sometimes. It doesn't benefit us as a team to decide, for example, that since one person got a useful magic item relevant to their class that they therefore don't get any coin treasure and therefore can't pay for level training.


Anyway, I'd like to point out that "players who are online decide" is the reality of the situation regardless of what decision is made in the thread. For example, in-game the players who were present when the elven mail was distributed voted to give it to Nathanael. So he got it, and it's on his character sheet. People can vote all they want after the fact, but if he doesn't want to give it up, nobody can take it from him without it going to combat. Anybody who thinks they can vote whether he's "allowed" to keep it is delusional.

Again...let's at least admit to ourselves that the only reason we're even having this discussion is because GlyphGlyph's character, who has physical possession of the treasure we've voting on has chosen to make that treasure available for party distribution. If he wasn't choosing to do that...nobody here would be able to get any of it at all without taking it by force.

[GlyphGryph]

I don't want to actually encourage unconscious players to stay online for no purpose, and it doesn't make any sense for unconscious characters to be able to argue for anything. Furthermore, nobody seemed terribly interested in supporting your proposal. Again, that option is very much based on practicality more than anything else - and it's simply not practical for unconscious characters to exert any sort of negotiating force, on account of their being unable to do anything. It makes the proposal less stable to allow it.

And obviously they can then choose to distribute the shares unevenly, since they have respective possession, any "in the moment" agreements hold. The unconscious player's character, if they've stuck around, can certainly try to convince the other characters he deserves a large share of the loot!

[Kagus]

I really have the feeling option (1) is going turn into even more fighting as people talk about how unfair it is that someone who only played an hour in another group on another adventure gets a share of THEIR huge amount of treasure, people will back out, and we'll be back to square one. But if people want to do it for as long as it works, fine. But there really isn't a way to do this with seperate groups and parties, as there is likely to be at least some overlap.

Okay, I suppose I should address this point.  I felt it was inherent in the option itself that only people having the slightest bit of anything to do with one another (I.E., the same party) would share loot, which is why I didn't feel the particular need to put in a "Provisionally..." as The Ensorceler did.  Clearly, I was wrong.  In that case, I wish to also change my vote to a "Provisional yes" provided that this concept is applied.  Resource distribution should be within the party only, unless you're specifically trading with another party for some reason.

I don't want to actually encourage unconscious players to stay online for no purpose, and it doesn't make any sense for unconscious characters to be able to argue for anything.

1) This isn't your game, you have no control or authority over any player other than yourself.  People can stay online and watch the proceedings as long as they please.  There's a reason people are doing this, a multiplayer affair, rather than just booting up some singleplayer roguelike or whatnot.  2) This is a bastardized form of 1st edition randomized tomfoolery played out over an IRC channel.  Arcane concepts such as "realism" and "sense" have no real bearing here.

[GlyphGryph]

Okay, I suppose I should address this point.  I felt it was inherent in the option itself that only people having the slightest bit of anything to do with one another (I.E., the same party) would share loot, which is why I didn't feel the particular need to put in a "Provisionally..." as The Ensorceler did.  Clearly, I was wrong.  In that case, I wish to also change my vote to a "Provisional yes" provided that this concept is applied.  Resource distribution should be within the party only, unless you're specifically trading with another party for some reason.

Except, as I mentioned, there probably isn't going to be a clear division of "party" for many of these sessions. At this point, I consider myself in the same party as the two half-elves, Caellath, and the gnome - I don't consider myself in the same party as anybody else. I haven't even met them yet. Do you consider me an actual member of your party? Does scriver? If we've got people who are mostly on earlier in the day and others who are mostly on later, with a person or two overlapping, I can quickly see this becoming a problem in regards to "what constitutes a party". So ultimately, I think if we do it this way we'll have to have some way to tell what a "party" is - probably an agreement among the players. I'm not opposed to this, I just don't think it's going to end up as clear cut as you seem to. But hey, if most people want us to try it out, we'll try it out.

1) This isn't your game, you have no control or authority over any player other than yourself.

I never said it was. But maybe I should specify. If I end up unconscious in the first ten minutes of gameplay, I don't think I should feel the need to stick around and do NOTHING for what could well be several hours, because for some reason my unconscious body will be getting a claim to the loot. I don't think it's fair to players who have better things to do - you're penalizing them for logging off when they can't play if you allow unconscious characters a say in loot distribution with this system. I don't think that's fair, at all.

And I'm not arguing from a point of view of realism, but I am arguing from the point of view of in-game sensibility. The clear, obvious one - if you're unconscious, and we agree not to give you a share, what are you going to do about it?

[LordBucket]

(I.E., the same party) would share loot

Not that simple. Consider the scenario described in this post.

If I end up unconscious in the first ten minutes of gameplay, I don't think I should feel the
need to stick around and do NOTHING for what could well be several hours

This is one of the problems solved by the "conscious at 1hp" rule that I proposed here.

That would require DM approval, but it would solve several problems.

[scriver]

Well, I'm kinda sorry I started this discussion right now, not realising it would turn into something as big as this.

I've been thinking over the last days, even though I was too tired of arguing to fight about stuff here - but I've come to the conlusion that really, all of this could be handled IC if people just didn't stop pretending other PCs were there if the player logs out. To me it doesn't matter if my character would just take the backseat and a mainly responsive role, and played by Wrex if absolutely necessarily. Having backseat characters around might even save the party from a TPK. If the rest of the party then wants to leave the backseat character behind or trick/con him about the treasure, they'll just have to make the IC choice to do so. That's the best way to keep the players from getting sore, or at least I would have no trouble having characters work against and deceive each others - I just don't want to feel tricked as a player.

I also realise much of this also comes from having different ground assumptions about the duties of a party to it's members (on a player level) and being taken by surprise when they are "broken". Now that I know what to expect I feel it doesn't matter as much how "fairly" the loot is divided (whether the loot from last time or in the future) and I feel I can handle it IC as Beadocaf rather than getting angry as a player. He can always strike out on his own, after all, should it be necessary. I think he's at least geographically on his own right now anyway, since he isn't with your guys, I believe.

[LordBucket]

if people just didn't stop pretending other PCs were there if the player logs out. To me it doesn't
matter if my character would just take the backseat and a mainly responsive role, and played by Wrex
Having backseat characters around might even save the party from a TPK.

From the point of view of players, this creates the following problems:

 * Your character might die when you're not online. I don't want to log on one day and find out that "oh, sorry...your character died because we kept playing her after you logged out last week. Sorry."
 * People would continue to get gold and xp even when they're not playing, thereby taking it away from players who are actually playing. Apparently gold = xp, so...what, log one for one hour, then leave, and let your character continue to take gold and experience from the other people who are actually playing for the next 5 hours? How is that reasonable?

From the point of view of the DM, this creates the following problems:

 * Having to run all those characters for players who aren't online
 * Having to decide whether to grant contractual immortality to the characters of offline players.

Wrex: if you're running characters for offline players, not only does that increase your workload, let's say an orc hits one and rolls a kill...what are you going to do? Are you going to kill the character and deal with explaining it to the player later? Or are you going to fudge the roll to avoid that problem...thereby giving an incentive to players to not play because they not only get gold and xp when they're offline, they're also immortal?

[BFEL]

I love how LordBucket says everything I want to say without me having to say it.
Its convenient