|
Post by Ginger on Dec 21, 2004 16:30:36 GMT -5
Making someone give up their share of the loot was less relevant under our previous distribution system. Since all of the cash went into the common funds, if Winthrop spend a ton of cash to get raised, it didn't matter. He could just go to the Silent One and put whatever spells he wanted on our expense account. Alternatively, he could just wait for Dell to do it and copy the spells for the same effect.
Now that we all get our cash directly to do as we see fit, we'll be stingier.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 21, 2004 16:38:14 GMT -5
Too many NPCs is obviously a problem, but I think we'll be fine. We're basically just going back to the status quo, back when it was 3 PCs and 3 NPCs (Al, Frank and Garvin). When we went out to fight Gador, it was 3 PCs and 4 NPCs (the cleric of Wee Jas). That was a bit much. 4:4 should be ok. It should be easier since any new guys would be level one and will play straightforward, archetypal roles.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 21, 2004 16:42:15 GMT -5
I don't see us being that much stingier, to be honest. Liato has little need for money, and the place we live already has a Druid to look out for it. Raven has said repeatedly that he doesn't need money for much of anything, and Dell... while greedy, he can see the value in keeping the other group members alive, or bringing them back from the dead.
If you want to make it a formal rule, how about this - all members chip in equally to get someone raised from the dead. And since I feel that death has to have some kind of cost (in addition to the current ones) the dead guy gets last pick for magic items when they're distributed.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 21, 2004 16:43:39 GMT -5
I don't see us being that much stingier, to be honest. Liato has little need for money, and the place we live already has a Druid to look out for it. Raven has said repeatedly that he doesn't need money for much of anything, and Dell... while greedy, he can see the value in keeping the other group members alive, or bringing them back from the dead. If you want to make it a formal rule, how about this - all members chip in equally to get someone raised from the dead. And since I feel that death has to have some kind of cost (in addition to the current ones) the dead guy gets last pick for magic items when they're distributed. That sounds fine.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 21, 2004 16:51:48 GMT -5
I think we'll be okay for NPC's once we get off this adventure. Some guys to come along with us, guard the campsite and drive the cart is a good idea, but as far as people actually going into combat with us, that would be a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 21, 2004 17:21:41 GMT -5
Okay, let's see what we've got now:
There are no tiers of membership, there's members, and non-members. Non-members are hired on negotiated contracts, and may become members if we decide they should. Members get an even split of the cash, with a small percentage (10%) pitched in for company expenses (maintaining our houses, boats, and secret bases.)
Treasure distribution: each magic item is evaluated at 500 gp. Money is distributed, then items are distributed by draft. Draft order is selected by roll of d100, high roll gets first pick. Once an item is drafted, it belongs to the person that drafted it to do as they please - store it, sell it, burn it, send it to the church of Pelor to be purified, walk into the silent one's house and do a retributive strike with it... or trade it with another party member for an item you like better.
This system does allow for people to get items they are incapable of using - Dell could end up with a potion of Heroism, Al could end up with a scroll of Featherfall. That's just how the system works - it's fairer that way.
And members = everyone. Garvin, Frank, Liato too. But they don't have access to the group account as of yet - only the "senior" members have that.
And I vote Raven should be party leader and decide what we do. Winthrop is too confused.
|
|
liato
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by liato on Dec 21, 2004 17:37:46 GMT -5
We really need a death fund and we should not impose a penalty on whoever died.
The reason there wasn't enough money in the company fund to rez people is that we spend it all on spells for the mages.
And don't forget that half the reason the fighters die is that the mages are constantly fireballing them. If you fireballed me to death and then told me I got to pick last when I woke up I'd smack the crap out of you. If anything the people who die should get to pick first.
Frank is constantly not going into battle because "we don't pay him enough." If we really decide to not have a rez fund then I expect it will alter behavior. And look at the types of NPCs we're talking about hiring. It's all front line people. These are people that are going to be standing between us and giants, us and wraiths, us and dragons. Are those the people you want to be trying to screw out of a few gold coins? "Go stand in front of that golem. And if you die then we'll try to save some of the loot for you."
Having a ressurection fund is completely rational because you never know which person is going to be the dead one. If you decide to not rez someone and take their stuff instead, then you know that if you happen to be the guy who bites the bullet next time it will happen to you. You rez your friend because next time he'll be rezing you. Even self intersted chaotic people should do follow that principle.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 21, 2004 20:49:16 GMT -5
We really need a death fund and we should not impose a penalty on whoever died. I feel that there should be a penalty. I mean, if you're dumb enough to get killed, you don't deserve all the treasure, if for no other reason than you didn't help us carry it all back. I'm flexible on this point, though, as I might actually die sometime, and I'd hate to miss out on the goodies. That's what the company fund was originally for - training expenses, and things that benefit the group as a whole. Spells are one of the things that the whole party benefits from. Just look at how many times Taunt has saved us from... well, never mind. But the company agreed with the expenditures. Actually, unless you want to count that orc, no one's taken friendly fire since the whole group got killed. And that was from the wand of wonder, so it's not like it was intended to be a fireball... It was just as likely to be something that saved the entire group. We have gotten people caught in webs, but that's hardly fatal. If you look at who's died, discounting the TPK, you have Winthrop and Al. If you look at who's been level drained, you have Winthrop and Garvin. If you look at who has the lowest AC - it's Winthrop. Even with the shield spell up, he's not too hard to hit, so he ends up dead or drained or whatever. Liato could easily be among those numbers - he's been knocked down or incapacitated in almost every single fight he's been in. I don't think you can honestly say that the front line is more dangerous than any other position. Al does go down a lot, but I think Al is overly aggressive, and pays the price for it. Although we all agree that invisibly running away from the battle is slightly less dangerous than most of the other roles in the party. Frank is constantly saving the day because he doesn't charge headlong into battle like a fool. So if the front line is getting torn up, he steps up and saves their bacon. I don't think you can honestly say that Frank is holding anything back - he's just a more deliberate fighter than Al. And he's not stupid enough to attack an 8 foot monster with a fricking dagger. Of course it's rational to have a ressurection fund - it's just that ideally, it would be financed with the resurrectee's money. Imagine if Liato and Raven had been killed by the evil wizard last time we met. Now, there's not enough money in the fund to raise the three of you - there's probably not enough loot in this whole temple to raise three people. So what do we do? We have to start hocking your valuables to see how much money we can get, so we can afford to raise you. Not to mention - to get Al raised, we'll have to go to a city we've never been. We don't have an account there so we'll have to pay with the money we have on us. Which essentially means that... each one of us will have to chip in an equal amount to get him raised. Which was my plan. Okay, new plan. The company should buy a gem for each member worth ~10,000 gold. You have to carry it with you at all times - put it in a small wizard-locked box and strap it on under your armor or robes, hide it in your colon, replace your left eye with it, whatever. We use the gem to finance your revival, should you die.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 21, 2004 21:19:27 GMT -5
Let's take stock of all of our deaths: 1. Rook got poisoned by a treasure chest trap in the Sahaguin lair. 2. Raven got poisoned by the Sahaguin priestess. 3. Ed got devoured by a rug-beast. 4. The whole company (Raven, Winthrop, Ross and Al) were killed by a shambling mound. (Did we establish that we were killed by the mound, or did did Dred and co. kill the mound and then kill our unconscious bodies?) 5. Winthrop was killed by a magical lion tasked with killing him. 6. Al got killed by a group of ghouls, who not only brought him to zero, but kept eating the body to bring him to -23.
Nobody died because they were being heroic and sacrificing themselves. They generally die because they aren't careful enough.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 9:22:12 GMT -5
We can just say "if someone dies, they'll be raised from the dead," we save some money in a group fund, and worry about the details later.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 22, 2004 9:47:49 GMT -5
It depends on how you define heroic. Winthrop has taken his actions to the full benefit of the party. The first time I got drained was because I decieded to attack the wight before it drained someone looking for his shield. I obviously didn't expect to be attacked but I did it again. Same with the second draining. I put my self in a bad position in order to help with the matters at hand. My timing was bad with the return of the Wraith. With the Shambling Mound I should have run for it but stayed and attempted to save the party with the wand of wonder. So if I were a wiser mage I would be like Dell and not put the party's safety above my own. From recent experience Winthrop may be learning the value of playing things safe. What is heroic for a fighter may be different from a mage.
Happy Holidays!
|
|
liato
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by liato on Dec 22, 2004 10:12:02 GMT -5
Wow. We are a selfish party.
You think that people died because they weren't careful enough and that Frank is a model front line fighter? You don't think the front line is more dangerous? Who exactly is the front line that Frank is saving going to be if the fighters hold back?
And so much for heroism. Let's say someone gets knocked unconsious or held. I can either pull them out or I can attack someone.
Raven is held and a ghoul is attacking him. Should I: a) attack the evil cleric and let raven die b) attack the ghoul to save Raven or just pull raven out of combat?
It's probably better for me to kill the cleric since he poses a greater threat to me. I don't really care if Raven dies because it doesn't cost me anything. But saving his life might mean that we lose the combat so it's not worth it.
Is a wraith attacking Winthrop? No problem. That means he's not attacking me. In the 3 or 4 rounds it takes him to kill winthrop I can finish off whatever is attacking me. Then I can go and kill the wraith, or if things are going badly I could just run.
And I'm a healer. Do you think I'm going to cast heal spells on other people anymore? Maybe after I'm at full. The reason I was knocked unconcious several times is that I healed other people and wasn't at full. No one is getting a heal spell unless I am at full hp from now on.
I've been running into combat to try and kill the spell casters even though I know I'll probably get knocked unconcious. I'm not doing that anymore.
Or if a fighter is unconcious surrounded by a bunch of enemies what's to keep the mages from fireballing the whole bunch. I mean they actually benefit if the fighter dies.
These are all suboptimal combat strategies for the party but since we have to be concerned with weather we die and not weather anyone in the party dies that's what makes the most sense.
For those truly selfish people it makes sense to architect players deaths, particularly if there's a CBS imposed penalty. Oh, it looks like the ghoul has paralyzed raven. As soon as he's done gnawing on Raven's corpse I'll kill it and then I can buy raven's items from his poor ass. That will teach him to actually stand and fight something. And we don't have any greedy people with those types of alignments now do we?
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 11:31:52 GMT -5
I thought that all the party members were already trying to stay alive? Did I miss a memo?
The incentive to keep the other party members alive is the same as it's always been - the same as it was before we could afford to raise someone. Each member helps the group become more successful, as a whole. From a strictly rational POV, if you let a character die in room #3, his loss may get you killed in room #4.
And in game, all our characters are friends. And most people don't need rational reasons or financial incentives to save their friends lives. Maybe if you're sociopathic, but not normal people.
Also, it's a two way street - if it's noticed that you don't rush in to help people, then people won't rush in to help you. Good aligned characters will tend to do it, regardless. Evil characters might behave as you theorise, but we don't have any of those in the party right now. Neutral characters... well, they have the option to do so, or not.
I still say - all members chip in to get any fallen person raised (using company funds first). Said fallen person gets last pick on item distribution.
Alternatively, we can find a 9th level cleric and have them join the party.
|
|
liato
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by liato on Dec 22, 2004 12:30:20 GMT -5
Actually, party members are not trying stay alive as much as they are trying to help the group win the battle. Staying alive usually helps that, but sometimes that means that individually it makes sense for them to go unconcious. But that puts them at serious risk of dying.
This sounds very much like everyone needs to look out for themselves and I still don't see why I shouldn't heal myself before before I heal anyone else under this system. As Dell put it, if you want particular spells cast at particular times in particular ways then study magic yourself.
The point of creating a ressurection fund instead of just chipping in when someone dies is that if we don't have a dedicated fund we might not have the resources when the time comes. Do you think Frank is really going to save his money in case Dell dies? I mean what if he helps to rez Dell and then Frank dies and doesn't have enough money to raise himself? He could be encouraged to save it if he knew that it might be used on him and that everyone was contributing.
Is there going to be any sort of general fund anymore? Because the only items I can think of right now that I would be willing to contribute to are a ressurection fund, house maintence, and ship maintence.
For a group of party members that are supposed to be friends we sure spend a lot of time arguing over treasure distribution, hiding magic items from each other, and being extremely reluctant to loan those items out. It has been a long time since any of my characters have had a fair split of the treasure. The only magic item I have owned since Rook has been the Rod of paralyzation I found that no one else noticed. If I had reported the rod I wouldn't own it right now. I didn't even get a split of the Chimera treasure and have no idea what my split on this adventure is going to be, although from what I am gathering it will likely not include magic items. Have we ever witnessed NPCs getting a fair split of the treasure?
So I agree that things like deciding who gets what, saving each others lives, and paying for healing and ressurection shouldn't be complicated issues for us to deal with. But that doesn't seem at all to be how we are playing our characters.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 22, 2004 12:47:39 GMT -5
I don't think anyone of us playing selfish. We are playing the best we can to the benefit of the party based on the way we choose to play a character. We wouldn't get far as a group on any level if self intrest was the sole motivating factor. I don't begrudge anyone for my dying or being drained of dying. I also wouldn't have been upset if it was decided not to resurrect me. It's a game I'm there to have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 22, 2004 13:02:33 GMT -5
This resurection fund strikes me as a rather trivial issue. It happens rarely enough, and we can always find a way to resolve it after the fact. We have a lot of assets we can put up for collateral while we go around to get our loot from Monmorg and Saltmarsh (assuming Serrin hasn't drained the account).
The important thing is that everyone who wants to get raised gets raised, and that seems very likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 14:53:07 GMT -5
This sounds very much like everyone needs to look out for themselves and I still don't see why I shouldn't heal myself before before I heal anyone else under this system. Because Frank would cut your head off if you did that. Seriously though... right now, we have no policy on raisings and ressurections. We've never had a policy, aside from saying "members would get raised, non-members wouldn't." I fail to see why anyone's behavior would change from what it was before, considering that we haven't changed anything. We all agree that our fallen comrades should be raised. You think we should pay in advance, I think we should pay when it happens. I'm changing sides to your side, because it doesn't really matter. A valid point. We'll go with the idea I like to call the "Life Gem." We all chip in to buy a 8 or 10K gem, and keep it on us. If someone dies, the gem finances their raising, and we buy another gem. Liato's cut of the Chimera adventure was 1500 gold, same as Frank's. He wasn't around to accept it, so I imagine it got put in the bank with the rest of the cash. And Winthrop, at least, is very generous with his magic items. Raven is also, when he has items that anyone else can use. The stinginess and hiding of items - well, that's all Dell's doing. Dell has three main character traits: he's greedy, he's paranoid, and he thinks he's smarter than everyone else. It's not that he wants to take the magic items from the party, it's that he doesn't trust anyone but him to use them properly. And the NPC's have been doing quite well for themselves - they get lots more cash than the company members do, so much so that Frank didn't want to join. And while we say they don't get magic items, that's not exactly true - Frank has magic armor, Garvin has gotten amulets to destroy, as well as clerical scrolls. Also, if you had reported the rod earlier, it's true that you might not own it... but we would have had more time to identify it so we could actually be USING it. We can always start a new campaign as all Lawful Good characters.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 15:07:57 GMT -5
I also wouldn't have been upset if it was decided not to resurrect me. It's a game I'm there to have fun. I was on the fence about having Winthrop resurrected, until you rolled up that barbarian with the 18 Dex.
|
|
liato
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by liato on Dec 22, 2004 15:21:36 GMT -5
Well I'm not sure what policies we have anymore. It doesn't sound like we have any and it doesn't sound like we really want any. I'm okay with that.
I think it's fine if we all do our own thing or try to work as a group or to do our own thing while working as a group. I just have no idea which one we're trying to do.
It seems like these are the reoccuring questions: Are we supposed to donate money to a group fund? What is that fund used for? How do we pay NPCs? How do we distribute magic items?
I'm pretty confused at this point as to where everyone stands on those issues.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 22, 2004 15:22:25 GMT -5
Oh, that Barbarian will be sweet when he shows up. His time will come. Winthrop seems to spend most of his money (and others) buying replacing spell books and getting brought back form the dead.
I don't think we need to have all one alignment. It is more interesting having a mix. We've already gotten Al to shift his. If we pick up Oralndo as an NPC the would add an extra fun element of a lawful good character and then get Serrin to round it out.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 22, 2004 15:45:56 GMT -5
It seems like these are the reoccuring questions: Are we supposed to donate money to a group fund? Yes. After each adventure, each senior partner will put in a small percentage of their share. That share can be determined on an adventure to adventure basis. It should be large enough to pay for food, lodging, and upkeep of joint property. Not large enough to pay for spells, equipment for members, or some other things we've been using it for. Weak NPCs get some small stipend or a small share of the loot. Tougher NPCs (Frank, Al and Garvin) are treated more like us. A draft. Just like the NBA draft, people can swap picks for items, or for future picks. It's very flexible. Which characters get to pick is also flexible. I'd probably vote that anyone over level 4 (fighters) or 5 (other) should get to pick with us, assuming that they're not specifically contracted out (like the Pelorites).
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 16:58:01 GMT -5
Well I'm not sure what policies we have anymore. It doesn't sound like we have any and it doesn't sound like we really want any. I'm okay with that. The way I see it now is that all seven of us on this adventure get an equal share. The money is split equally, and we draft the magic items one by one, all seven of us. The whole Member/Hireling idea is going by the wayside, because it doesn't work well at all. The Pelorites will have to be appeased somehow, but that shouldn't be too hard since we're playing them. But it shouldn't be too much of a dent - a 10% off the top tithe to Pelor, plus the value of evil crap that they'll destroy instead of cash in, plus Rangers and Paladins don't care much about money, plus we're on a mission for their church and they should be PAYING US for coming along with them. Hell, we should have gotten paid just for telling them where it was. "Hey Pelorites, mind if we attack your most hated enemy? You don't have to pay us or anything." Here's my latest idea about the company fund. It exists to invest in things to make us all richer or more comfortable - houses, boats, inns, taverns - that sort of thing. The HotBS is in a good spot for a Bed and Breakfast, all we need to do is hire a staff and expand the stables a bit. People can chip in towards a ressurection fund, but that doesn't have to be related to the CotBS at all - or we can just have a "gentleman's agreement" that we'll do all we can to get people raised. Right now, the company fund just sits there making the banker richer. If we say "pay money to join the company, and buy new spells for the mages," no one joins. If we say "buy shares in Blue Sun, and have part ownership in a chain of inns, taverns, secret fortresses, and a slaving trading vessel," people might be interested. It's kind of a shift from what we've been doing, true. But look at it like this: the Blue Sun isn't an adventuring company. It's a company that happens to be financed by adventurers. So on an adventure, company membership is meaningless - everybody fights, nobody quits, and we all get an even split at the end. The company members contribute some percentage of their take to the company fund, and that's used to invest in whatever moneymaking idea the company decides. Frank is already investing his earnings in trade routes and other things - if we change the function of the company, he'd join for sure. So you can adventure with the Blue Sun all you want, and while you're with us you can sleep in our inns, ride on our ships, and make out with our barmaids. But if you aren't a member, then on your downtime you'll have to pay. Anybody like this plan?
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Dec 22, 2004 17:00:57 GMT -5
If we don't decide to go all merchant-style with the company fund, then I agree with everything Arrowguy said.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 22, 2004 17:27:12 GMT -5
If we don't decide to go all merchant-style with the company fund, then I agree with everything Arrowguy said. That's why I'm the leader! ;D
|
|