How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
There might not be a right way, but there are plenty of wrong ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
Maybe, I dunno. Some players do play the party like a sort of charter company that would have profit sharing rules. Other lean into the possibility that you have a set of characters with differing values, and somewhere between The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Battle of Five Armies ... there's a lot of room for in game tension over loot that can be fun for role playing that a session 0 social contract clause abandons. Personally I think fixed rules on treasure leads to the game becoming more 'grinding' and I usually try to play treasure (aside from a few mundane magic items) as having a bit more meaning than character sheet optimization. You're right though that D&D is a bunch of different games right down to what the rewards are.
If you want to play fast and loose...then that's cool. That can be agreed on beforehand. The problem that is occurring is that you have some members expecting it to be optimised, others might be expecting it to be distributed equitably...while some apparently think it's should be given to whoever finds it with maybe the option of trading. The lack of agreement on how the game should be played is the issue, not the actual arrangement. If everyone at your table agrees that magic items should be distributed according to the arguments of the PCs...then that's great and can lead to interesting scenarios.
How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
There might not be a right way, but there are plenty of wrong ways.
Only in as much as the players disagree. If everyone (players) is in agreement and having fun, then it's right. If people aren't having fun (which usually occurs because there are people who disagree with the method), then it's the wrong way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My preferred method is that the party distributes the loot in an optimised way. The DM adjusts the loot so that the optimised way is roughly equal. Obviously, you might end up having the Cleric carry tons of potions as the designated healer, but you don't end up with a Paladin barely able to move with all those magic goodies because he's over-encumbered while the Monk has nothing because the DM drops loot aimed at each player so you can keep it fair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Beyond the "on role" explanations, I believe that in a role-playing game, as in life, one must maintain the social pact. If your attitude creates discomfort to the rest of your table companions, you should put aside the narrative justifications and work so that there are no problems. If you don't, whether you're right or not, you're poisoning the environment and breaking the social pact. Not with the characters of your companions, but with your companions. It is with them that you have that unwritten pact.
There are a LOT of wrong ways to do things, including Loot distribution.
Most people will agree that giving all the loot to the guy with the highest charisma is a wrong way to do things.
EVERYONE I know will agree that destroying all loot as a sacrifice to the gods is the wrong way to do things.
Personally, I have found that the only way to avoid loot distribution problems is "buy it from the party" method.
Party gets loot, distribute the gold, then everyone can bid on anything else they want. Highest bidder gets it. Anything no one bids on gets sold, and the gold distributed.
This method tends to keep everyone happy. If you don't get the item, you end up with more gold.
There are many right ways to distribute loot. There are also a few wrong ways that work terribly.
But the point that I've been arguing is that this is not a big deal that someone's player kept one magic item for themselves. and they don't need to be punished or attacked by a fellow player for dealing with loot in a different way. OP wants loot to be distributed the way THEY would like it, and that's fine, they can distribute their magic items that way. But they shouldn't force their loot distribution method on others, and let everyone at the table play the way they want to play.
OP's situation is not a big deal, and it seems like they very much overreacted. A session zero would have solved it and it sounds like the DM needs to take stock of the players and see how they'd like to distribute loot now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
As stated earlier, the book belongs to a certain PC, they get to choose what to do with it.
The book has NOT been identified so nobody really knows what it does.
Arguing that you or somebody else should get the book because you said so is poor form. It's not your book, let it go. I'm sure that somewhere along the line everybody in the party got some kind of magic item(s). Arrange for a trade if you want it so bad.
Attempting to steal it from the PC is absolutely ridiculous. That is a terrible way to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I would simply inform him that this is a group game, nothing actually belongs to his character, and that there are only two ways forward: Be an adult, or find a group of kids to play with.
I'm well aware that's maybe a bit harsh, but the value of the hobby is directly reflected in our willingness to protect it. If someone at the table is ruining the game, spoiling the mood or whatever, they need to stop. It's precisely like monopoly - you play by the rules or you don't get invited. And the number one rule of RPG's is: We're all here to have fun.
And hey, if your character isn't fun - reroll. Play a barbarian. If you cannot have fun playing a barbarian, you're unlikely to ever find fun in anything.
(I like barbarians)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Basically there is someone at my table who came into acquisition of a +2 strength book. The one that raises stats above 20. Some clarity of context regarding this player
Hes a monk who’s best stat is dex
Enjoys authentic naturally occurring RPing
Rarely talks as a character and the player has martyr complex making addressing disagreements volatile and is met with justifications over apologies.
Has voiced many times that he doesn’t know why he’s even here because he’s not important both as a player and PC.
——
So as I’ve said he acquired this book. Our warlock noticed it was magical and wanted to identify it, to which the player in question wanted to know why. It has been a standard that all items should be identified and our warlock even attempted to rp the reason saying it could be cursed and best to be sure. Yet the player persistently refused, asking for reasons and giving justifications. Eventually the lock gave up. The player justifying his choice by saying “it’s a book about weight training and it’s mine”. He could have rp’d a reason for his adamant stance but he didn’t even bother. So out the window goes “I like natural occurring rp moments”
This player has two issues one way or the other that I see and none of them make him look good.
1. He’s hiding behind “natural rping” to excuse toxic playing *why should I give this book to the Paladin because it’s min/max sound?* To justify improving his own character over the benefit to the party. That’s like me, a Rogue, taking a red staff I find with + 3 to hit with wizard spells and keeping it because it matches my socks. Basically “It’s what my character would do” stance
2. His PC doesn’t trust the other PCs and wants to act solo as he sees fit. FYI this is an almost 3 Irl year game and 6 months in game.
What would be your approach? I’m thinking of just asking directly, but again. Fragile feels and expertise in deflection.
You have a basic problem player.
Get rid of him. You don't generally fix contrary personalities just by asking them to play nice. Save yourself the headache and rip off the bandaid.
its been kinda pointed out that this is heavily one sided, and for all we know the OP is the problem. I don't think we should be telling folk to kick the other person out based on just this thing
Get rid of him. You don't generally fix contrary personalities just by asking them to play nice. Save yourself the headache and rip off the bandaid.
The OP is a player in the game not the DM. He has also gone completely silent after people didn’t agree with him. The story doesn’t make sense and sounds very much like the OP is sulking about the monk player not turning over treasure belonging to the monk player. Sounds much more like a fellow player having a temper tantrum after not getting their own way and coming to the forum seeking vindication.
But doesn't that bolded portion include the player of the monk, too?
And what if they were playing a barbarian and the others still decided the +2 strength book should go to the paladin?
Sure. But you cannot (generally speaking) fix people. You can only fix the group.
Now, I don't know the monk player - but if he's being a nuisance, deliberately, then he's keeping himself as well as everyone else from having fun. It is doing him a favor, to inform him he's acting like a child, and has to actually work with the group, if he wants to be part of the group. If he decides he does want to be part of the group, and stops being a nuisance - then I'd say speak to the rest of the group, try to make everyone work to have him feel included.
But if he doesn't play ball? Out he goes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But doesn't that bolded portion include the player of the monk, too?
And what if they were playing a barbarian and the others still decided the +2 strength book should go to the paladin?
Sure. But you cannot (generally speaking) fix people. You can only fix the group.
Now, I don't know the monk player - but if he's being a nuisance, deliberately, then he's keeping himself as well as everyone else from having fun. It is doing him a favor, to inform him he's acting like a child, and has to actually work with the group, if he wants to be part of the group. If he decides he does want to be part of the group, and stops being a nuisance - then I'd say speak to the rest of the group, try to make everyone work to have him feel included.
But if he doesn't play ball? Out he goes.
What makes you think the monk player is intentionally doing his best to be a nuisance? Keeping a magic item for yourself is not "being a nuisance," it's just a slightly different way to play.
No decent DM would kick a player out just because they have differences in how they want to distribute magic items. This situation is not a big deal and OP seems to have severely overreacted.
If you're talking about the other things that OP very briefly mentioned, then Cyb3rM1ndexplains why these "concerns" aren't really major concerns in this post.
But doesn't that bolded portion include the player of the monk, too?
And what if they were playing a barbarian and the others still decided the +2 strength book should go to the paladin?
Sure. But you cannot (generally speaking) fix people. You can only fix the group.
Now, I don't know the monk player - but if he's being a nuisance, deliberately, then he's keeping himself as well as everyone else from having fun. It is doing him a favor, to inform him he's acting like a child, and has to actually work with the group, if he wants to be part of the group. If he decides he does want to be part of the group, and stops being a nuisance - then I'd say speak to the rest of the group, try to make everyone work to have him feel included.
But if he doesn't play ball? Out he goes.
OP isn't the GM. Kicking the monk out of the party is not an option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As others have said, that is a pretty big 'if.' There is way too much we do not know here.
Well - the question was 'what would you do'. I've spelled out what I would do, based on the information we do have. I have played for 35+ years, pretty much exclusively with close, personal friends. Over time, we've opened our group to new players, and they have either A) become close, personal friends, or B) been evicted back out, because they didn't respect the group dynamic. If someone is at my table (and that's irrespective of whether I'm a GM or a player) and is unwilling to play ball with the rest of us, that person will cease to be at my table.
Now, is it a luxury to have a group that's been stable for such a long time? Yes.
Does that mean I should be less adamant about the sort of behavior that is welcome in my group? No.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I play with my lifelong friends (about 30 years), and with strangers online. If there is a problem in the group of friends, we talk. We are friends after all and we know each other. There have been no problems for many years, really. If there are any problems with strangers, we try to talk. If there is no way to fix it, each to their own. Nor do you have to give it so many turns. It's a game. And there are people who are difficult to deal with.
As others have said, that is a pretty big 'if.' There is way too much we do not know here.
Well - the question was 'what would you do'. I've spelled out what I would do, based on the information we do have. I have played for 35+ years, pretty much exclusively with close, personal friends. Over time, we've opened our group to new players, and they have either A) become close, personal friends, or B) been evicted back out, because they didn't respect the group dynamic. If someone is at my table (and that's irrespective of whether I'm a GM or a player) and is unwilling to play ball with the rest of us, that person will cease to be at my table.
Now, is it a luxury to have a group that's been stable for such a long time? Yes.
Does that mean I should be less adamant about the sort of behavior that is welcome in my group? No.
Yeah, a lot of folks here have similar gaming experiences; but none of them are "adamantly" doubling down on what a clear consensus of perspectives see as a poorly accounted incident the asks more questions that the simple "am I right?" being posed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The title of this thread is 'opinion needed'. I've given an opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Doesn't mean other people can't give the opinion that in their opinion your opinion is not a good/correct/helpful one. That's kind of how discussion forums work, ne?
As others have said, that is a pretty big 'if.' There is way too much we do not know here.
Well - the question was 'what would you do'. I've spelled out what I would do, based on the information we do have. I have played for 35+ years, pretty much exclusively with close, personal friends. Over time, we've opened our group to new players, and they have either A) become close, personal friends, or B) been evicted back out, because they didn't respect the group dynamic. If someone is at my table (and that's irrespective of whether I'm a GM or a player) and is unwilling to play ball with the rest of us, that person will cease to be at my table.
Now, is it a luxury to have a group that's been stable for such a long time? Yes.
Does that mean I should be less adamant about the sort of behavior that is welcome in my group? No.
I would point out that the OP is not the DM and is presenting an account that does not add up. One such is that he states the monk player says they don’t know why they turn up, and that the dm has suggested he stops turning up, but he does anyway. This is crazy, the dm could easily revoke his access to an online game, and if it’s an in person game then the owner of the home that they play in could simply refuse to let the monk player in the house. Even simpler, just don’t tell him when the next game session will be. There is clearly far more going on here that the OP has not mentioned. I still think that the OP wants the item for himself and bullied the monk player, then came here for vindication. Why else would he have gone dark and stopped replying even though his profile has shown he has been active?
There might not be a right way, but there are plenty of wrong ways.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you want to play fast and loose...then that's cool. That can be agreed on beforehand. The problem that is occurring is that you have some members expecting it to be optimised, others might be expecting it to be distributed equitably...while some apparently think it's should be given to whoever finds it with maybe the option of trading. The lack of agreement on how the game should be played is the issue, not the actual arrangement. If everyone at your table agrees that magic items should be distributed according to the arguments of the PCs...then that's great and can lead to interesting scenarios.
Only in as much as the players disagree. If everyone (players) is in agreement and having fun, then it's right. If people aren't having fun (which usually occurs because there are people who disagree with the method), then it's the wrong way.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My preferred method is that the party distributes the loot in an optimised way. The DM adjusts the loot so that the optimised way is roughly equal. Obviously, you might end up having the Cleric carry tons of potions as the designated healer, but you don't end up with a Paladin barely able to move with all those magic goodies because he's over-encumbered while the Monk has nothing because the DM drops loot aimed at each player so you can keep it fair.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yes, exactly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Beyond the "on role" explanations, I believe that in a role-playing game, as in life, one must maintain the social pact. If your attitude creates discomfort to the rest of your table companions, you should put aside the narrative justifications and work so that there are no problems. If you don't, whether you're right or not, you're poisoning the environment and breaking the social pact. Not with the characters of your companions, but with your companions. It is with them that you have that unwritten pact.
There are a LOT of wrong ways to do things, including Loot distribution.
Most people will agree that giving all the loot to the guy with the highest charisma is a wrong way to do things.
EVERYONE I know will agree that destroying all loot as a sacrifice to the gods is the wrong way to do things.
Personally, I have found that the only way to avoid loot distribution problems is "buy it from the party" method.
Party gets loot, distribute the gold, then everyone can bid on anything else they want. Highest bidder gets it. Anything no one bids on gets sold, and the gold distributed.
This method tends to keep everyone happy. If you don't get the item, you end up with more gold.
There are many right ways to distribute loot. There are also a few wrong ways that work terribly.
But the point that I've been arguing is that this is not a big deal that someone's player kept one magic item for themselves. and they don't need to be punished or attacked by a fellow player for dealing with loot in a different way. OP wants loot to be distributed the way THEY would like it, and that's fine, they can distribute their magic items that way. But they shouldn't force their loot distribution method on others, and let everyone at the table play the way they want to play.
OP's situation is not a big deal, and it seems like they very much overreacted. A session zero would have solved it and it sounds like the DM needs to take stock of the players and see how they'd like to distribute loot now.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.As stated earlier, the book belongs to a certain PC, they get to choose what to do with it.
The book has NOT been identified so nobody really knows what it does.
Arguing that you or somebody else should get the book because you said so is poor form. It's not your book, let it go. I'm sure that somewhere along the line everybody in the party got some kind of magic item(s). Arrange for a trade if you want it so bad.
Attempting to steal it from the PC is absolutely ridiculous. That is a terrible way to play.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I would simply inform him that this is a group game, nothing actually belongs to his character, and that there are only two ways forward: Be an adult, or find a group of kids to play with.
I'm well aware that's maybe a bit harsh, but the value of the hobby is directly reflected in our willingness to protect it. If someone at the table is ruining the game, spoiling the mood or whatever, they need to stop. It's precisely like monopoly - you play by the rules or you don't get invited. And the number one rule of RPG's is: We're all here to have fun.
And hey, if your character isn't fun - reroll. Play a barbarian. If you cannot have fun playing a barbarian, you're unlikely to ever find fun in anything.
(I like barbarians)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
its been kinda pointed out that this is heavily one sided, and for all we know the OP is the problem. I don't think we should be telling folk to kick the other person out based on just this thing
The OP is a player in the game not the DM. He has also gone completely silent after people didn’t agree with him. The story doesn’t make sense and sounds very much like the OP is sulking about the monk player not turning over treasure belonging to the monk player. Sounds much more like a fellow player having a temper tantrum after not getting their own way and coming to the forum seeking vindication.
Sure. But you cannot (generally speaking) fix people. You can only fix the group.
Now, I don't know the monk player - but if he's being a nuisance, deliberately, then he's keeping himself as well as everyone else from having fun. It is doing him a favor, to inform him he's acting like a child, and has to actually work with the group, if he wants to be part of the group. If he decides he does want to be part of the group, and stops being a nuisance - then I'd say speak to the rest of the group, try to make everyone work to have him feel included.
But if he doesn't play ball? Out he goes.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
What makes you think the monk player is intentionally doing his best to be a nuisance? Keeping a magic item for yourself is not "being a nuisance," it's just a slightly different way to play.
No decent DM would kick a player out just because they have differences in how they want to distribute magic items. This situation is not a big deal and OP seems to have severely overreacted.
If you're talking about the other things that OP very briefly mentioned, then Cyb3rM1ndexplains why these "concerns" aren't really major concerns in this post.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.OP isn't the GM. Kicking the monk out of the party is not an option.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well - the question was 'what would you do'. I've spelled out what I would do, based on the information we do have. I have played for 35+ years, pretty much exclusively with close, personal friends. Over time, we've opened our group to new players, and they have either A) become close, personal friends, or B) been evicted back out, because they didn't respect the group dynamic. If someone is at my table (and that's irrespective of whether I'm a GM or a player) and is unwilling to play ball with the rest of us, that person will cease to be at my table.
Now, is it a luxury to have a group that's been stable for such a long time? Yes.
Does that mean I should be less adamant about the sort of behavior that is welcome in my group? No.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I play with my lifelong friends (about 30 years), and with strangers online.
If there is a problem in the group of friends, we talk. We are friends after all and we know each other. There have been no problems for many years, really.
If there are any problems with strangers, we try to talk. If there is no way to fix it, each to their own.
Nor do you have to give it so many turns. It's a game. And there are people who are difficult to deal with.
Yeah, a lot of folks here have similar gaming experiences; but none of them are "adamantly" doubling down on what a clear consensus of perspectives see as a poorly accounted incident the asks more questions that the simple "am I right?" being posed.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The title of this thread is 'opinion needed'. I've given an opinion.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Doesn't mean other people can't give the opinion that in their opinion your opinion is not a good/correct/helpful one. That's kind of how discussion forums work, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I would point out that the OP is not the DM and is presenting an account that does not add up. One such is that he states the monk player says they don’t know why they turn up, and that the dm has suggested he stops turning up, but he does anyway. This is crazy, the dm could easily revoke his access to an online game, and if it’s an in person game then the owner of the home that they play in could simply refuse to let the monk player in the house. Even simpler, just don’t tell him when the next game session will be. There is clearly far more going on here that the OP has not mentioned. I still think that the OP wants the item for himself and bullied the monk player, then came here for vindication. Why else would he have gone dark and stopped replying even though his profile has shown he has been active?