The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Roleplaying => Topic started by: DMOE on August 30, 2007, 11:36:18 am
-
Looting Policy
Firstly, this is no way shape or form a comment on how any other group on the server wishes to distribute loot drops, simply what one group of players have decided to agree to and use on runs WE organise which I am posting so everyone knows before they join us.
Secondly, this is not a discussion.....Questions to clarify any aspect of the policy are fine but if you wish to discuss how loot is distributed, please make another thread. As this post is to convey information not start a discussion if people take it off topic I will be asking for it to be locked.
Distribution of Loot drops
Where sensible the party will have 1-3 nominated looters who will be decided upon before the run starts and where possible pick the characters with the highest Lore to assist in identifying. Where sensible and time allows loot should always be identified before being picked up. Please leave all the looting to them as much as possible.
When it becomes time to distribute the loot items then items will be rolled for as normal BUT do NOT roll for an item unless you intend to actually use it. By actually use it we mean on a regular basis. If someone rolls for an item, stating they will use it and then we learn it has been sold within 3 months from the time they won it, they will no longer be invited on runs WE organise.
Should no one actually have a valid use for an item then all can roll for it and it can be sold as normal.
Rogues, Bards, UMD and Loot drops
Obviously rogues/bards with a high UMD can pretty much use anything. Should an item be found that is CLASS specific then members of that class will get first refusal on that item period. Should they not wish it then it will be rolled for by those that will use it, if no one will use then everyone can roll as above. By class specific we mean that it is the ONLY class listed in the description as able to use that item.
Loot and High Level CNR
When a high level CNR run is organised, such as (but not inclusive to) emeralds, rubies, mithral, yew then slightly different rules will apply.
If there is enough of the CNR for everyone in the party to take a share then the above rules will apply.
If there is NOT enough CNR for everyone then the CNR will be rolled for as normal, again....Roll if you are going to use it, not simply to sell it. Once the CNR has been rolled for and distributed then those NOT having got any of the CNR will get first refusal on any loot drops to roll among themselves as necessary. Once that has been done then the above rule applies to any loot left.
Staying together
Running off and leaving the looter is both dangerous for the looter as well as often losing them XP from the next encounter. Looters are providing the party a service and as such if you run off you will be given two warnings, if you continue to run ahead you will forfeit the right to roll for any CNR or loot.
Remember, if you roll saying you will use something and it is sold rather than used when another would have used it, you will not be asked to join the runs this group of characters organise.
Everyone in a group makes it possible for loot/CNR to be gathered and as such need should always come first in the distribution, then personal profit.
These rules obviously ONLY apply to runs any of these characters organise. Each group has their own ways of distributing loot and when invited on their runs then we expect to follow their rules. This is simply a heads up on what to expect on these character's runs.
The characters organising runs that this applies to are:
Drea
Godim
Sallaron
Muireann
Rhynn
Acacea
Emie Meadows
Beli Stonewill
Buddy Tenker
O'red Stonehall
Alleina
Daeron Stormcloud
Hardragh
Quillwem Laylluanilm
ZupZupZandZawae
Ralinda Allisan
Connor Garvill
Jennara
Elladan Peters
Cideous
Shamur Reatur
Shiff Dragonheart
Rodlin
AnnaLee
Boon Loon
Varka
Caighd Brendimeere
Donnchadh
Malammanyeel
Ireth Astendor
Wren Thendor
Cam Cutter
Kinai Ancalime
Pyyran Rahth
Ceviren Lightstaff
Ember Beau
Armolas Folian
Should anyone else wish to add their characters name to this set of rules as they would like to use it for trips they organise too, please PM me. In fact, even if you’re reading this and thinking “That’s what I do anyway” please still PM me to have your name added.
Even if you don't organise trips as such but like and support this....PM me your name! :)
-
Updated with additional names
-
Additional names added
-
Updated *sticks tounge out at Darkus Tornado*
-
*grins wickedly at DMOE*
-
More names added!!!
-
Another name added!
-
Even more names added!!!
Nice to see people signing up...Thank you to all that have and those who helped create this policy with me!
-
Updated!
-
Updated again.
-
A relevant question: To whom does the totally unwanted loot go; i.e. star dusts, charcoal, the regular old boots, that mineral phenalope...?
And a suggestion. While it is perfectly reasonable for six-sided dice to exist, ten-sided dice are quite a bit harder to make. I propose that the rolls be changed from 1d100 to 5d6. The bell curve makes that extra-high roll that much more impressive, and the low roll that much less likely to beat out the rest. In addition, as suggested in the first bit of this, it's more likely for these characters to have sets of six-sided dice to add up than ten-sided dice to put together.
-
Most partys send someone off to the pawn shop with unwanted loot and throw the coins into the 'trues' pot before the split. Other than that, it's pretty much up to the party....I've had groups tell Muir to donate it to her temple but then there was 3 Mistys and her favourite gnome in that group ;)
I'm all for good RP and everything but if it's 2am and I've just done a 6 hour run, I want to be rolling once and only rolling again if someone rolls exactly the same as me and we're the two highest.
1d100 while maybe not making the best RP sense, does make it quick and relatively painless so I'm not in favour of changing it.
-
I wanted to bump this back up for all the new folks to see.
Also if agreed by the majority of invested folks I would like to add a section on level requirements.
Level requirements should also be considered after all other things such as:
- Intention to actually use it and the ability to use it (if you cant use it dont roll for it if there are others that can use it and want it)
- CLASS specific gets first refusal on items over UMD period.
- If there are multi persons that fit all of the above (plus the other rules stated) then level reqs should be looked at. Dont take an item from a PC that can use it now if it will be more then 3 levels before you can use it.
Thanks all.
-
Updated and what do people think?
Do we wish to add that you shouldn't roll for an item you can't use for 3 levels or more against a person who can use it now?
-
I agree with the use-within-three-levels thing, but not with UMD. If someone can use it now, they can use it now - UMD is as much a class feature as Turn Undead or the ability to cast spells.
-
Rogues, Bards, UMD and Loot drops
Obviously rogues/bards with a high UMD can pretty much use anything. Should an item be found that is CLASS specific then members of that class will get first refusal on that item period. Should they not wish it then it will be rolled for by those that will use it, if no one will use then everyone can roll as above. By class specific we mean that it is the ONLY class listed in the description as able to use that item.
That's from the original policy Stephen.
Note it only applies to items where it is specific to ONE class and ONE class only.
I'm not about to change that.
-
Only tad problem I got with it...
I mean... seriously... you find some Enchanted Mithril Half Plate ( the rarest drop in the game)... and are only 3 levels away from being able to use it... and are told you cant roll for it?
Regardless of level on these " Uber rare item drops"... everyone would want to roll for them.
But... I signed.... so I agree.
As for the UMD thing... if an Item is say... "only usable by Ranger"... but a Rogue's got really high UMD... then the Ranger gets first refusale.
The very fact that a Rogue "can" use some items with UMD is the bonus of the Rogues class... but shouldn't give them the opportunity to have first refusale on basically every specific class item that drops.
If the Ranger doesnt want the item... then the Rogue has the bonus of being the only other person able to use it.
-
Lord Cove....I am asking for the opinions of the people who signed to see IF we take Jrizz's suggestion...
If your happy with the policy the way it is and the rest who can be bothered to post are....It'll stay the same...
The UMD thing is NOT changing....It is how it is in the original policy and it's staying that way
-
Ahh... in that case...
- Intention to actually use it and the ability to use it (if you cant use it dont roll for it if there are others that can use it and want it)
- If there are multi persons that fit all of the above (plus the other rules stated) then level reqs should be looked at. Dont take an item from a PC that can use it now if it will be more then 3 levels before you can use it.
Since these two go hand in hand... it seems fair.
I just smell disgruntlement in the air when some extra rare item gets dropped and the only person able to take it just happens to be the "highest" level.
-
I do agree that I too can see disgruntlement in the air as you described....
Maybe it would be better to open it up to 5 lvls....
Opinions?
-
Just one point I'd like to make in regards to levels...
When rewards are rolled for after quests, GMs generally request that if you cannot use it (due to level/class restrictions), or already have one/several/etc, don't roll for it. Further, they request that the items not be sold or traded by those who win them. So even opening it up to be within 3 levels is honestly, in my opinion, too permissive. UMD aside, if you can't use it, don't roll for it.
Likewise, if looting was allowed on the quest and the loot was split by rolling afterward, the same sort of request was made, if not by the GM then by a consensus of the party.
The same sort of consideration should be applied when a party just goes out adventuring, in my opinion. (NOTE: That's not an "official" opinion, just mine.)
Maybe I'm too old-school, but honestly, I think it's a bit sad this needs to be discussed at all. For the most part, whenever I have gone out with a group for several hours, the loot has been split according to the above. With one group in particular, it was just assumed, and whoever had done the looting started splitting gold while we were still going through all the items that were picked up. It was rare that there was any question about how things would proceed.
I personally do not see a problem, if there are 5 people in a party and only one of them meets the requirements (level, class and otherwise), that character should get the item if desired. From a GM's perspective, if we see items in someone's inventory that they can't yet use, we start wondering about muling and other such issues.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
-
I agree wholehearted with you Dorg. While travelling with those people I trust we have always let common knowlegde rule. But I have also seen many many moronic things in my days to know why some people prefer, if not travelling with people you trust, to have these rules.
In no particuliar order:
Monks rolling on shields.
Fighters rolling on INT gear.
Elf character ( none martial feat person ) rolling on longswords.
Any class rolling on items you cant use, because your RL-whatever class friends lost his roll on a item.
Any person rolling for items that they intend to GIVE to others.
and the list goes on.
-
already have one/several/etc, don't roll for it.
that's my main concern with this. Because someone is class specific he would get automatically (or roll with those of his class) for an item he already has, and gets again due to a freebee of his class, while those who spend time training Icly to use the items (Umd), would have to wait or not get it at all. This in my sense is completely throwing out the umd ic rp that the person has to train to be able to use items.
-
Hellblazer class specific items were put in the game to help those classes in the grand balancing act. I dont want this thread to turn into a UMD or rogue class bashing so lets drop it here. If you wish to discuss this please start another thread for that.
Anyway as DMOE said it is not going to be changed we have all agreed to it.
-
UMD is a separate issue, and I think whether or not someone with UMD should roll for an item (regardless of whether or not they can use it) should also be a matter of RP.
Extreme example:
A party that includes a high-level rogue and a paladin comes across a Holy Avenger sword. The paladin should get it, even if the rogue technically can use it.
Less extreme (and more realistic) example:
A party that includes a high-level rogue and a wizard (or sorcerer) comes across a suit of Greater Mage's Armor The mage should get it, even if the rogue technically can use it. The rogue would get almost no benefit from it at all.
NOTE: The example above does not take multi-classed rogues into account. It's only to illustrate a point.
-
that's my main concern with this. Because someone is class specific he would get automatically (or roll with those of his class) for an item he already has, and gets again due to a freebee of his class, while those who spend time training Icly to use the items (Umd), would have to wait or not get it at all. This in my sense is completely throwing out the umd ic rp that the person has to train to be able to use items.
Well yes, but we are asking people to only roll if they are going to USE IT....
Obviously this means trusting them to not already have six and use them all to avoid having to be without an effect before they can rest in the case of uses per day etc.
I would think with everything else.....If they already have one.....why would they want a second?
So other than items that give a benefit of some description X many times a day....I fail to see where the problem would be....
-
There is still the concern of the RP that gets thrown out because the person is not class specific even if he can use it due to training. I'd sing up right away if that was taking into account for the first roll, if they were to use it.
-
Again, I point at my examples above.
UMD is fine, and yes there is RP value there, but it should, in my opinion, be balanced with asking whether or not your character should be rolling for it. Accepting the RP of UMD also implies accepting the RP of class-specific items going to those for whom they are intended.
That's not to say a character with UMD can't roll for class-specific items. Please re-read and understand the intent behind my examples above.
-
My opinion wasn't against yours or misinterpreted yours. Just stating the point of why I would not sing up, due to the fact that those with the training to use the item and would use them, risks not being able to roll for them. Where of, if you had the class specific and the umd users, who would use the item roll at the same time, instead of privileging one group over the other that can use the same things, would be on a fair ground all around.
***edited
-
I don't think anyone's saying UMD characters are excluded, only that people whose class matches the class-specific requirements for items get the right of first refusal over characters with UMD. If they don't want the item, then a character with UMD is free to roll for it. It's not really unfair, in my opinion.
-
By the way...I'm not trying to convince you to sign...just trying to state that UMD should not be used as an "I get to roll for everything" card, just because the character mechanically can use a given item.
-
Not saying you are Dorg.
-
You dont have to sign up. But you do have to know that runs organized by the people that do agree will be run this way. So if you attend a run set up or brought together by one of these folks you are in a way agreeing to the policy for that run. Your other choice is not to attend. It is best to ask up front to make sure you are not disappointed later.
-
*bump*
Some of the new people might like to see this
-
This isnt..... he who dies with the most toys wins people!
UMD doesnt give the any class the right to an item over those its class was intended to go for. Like Dorg pointed out back a number of posts.
Need before Greed
Nuff said.
G-452
-
Perhaps I am missing the point (and don't tell me I am please) but if you are in a team which recovers an item, then in my mind, you are entitled to a fair roll to get it. Levels/use/sell it/swap it/burn it - I don't care. You took the risk, you are entitled to a share.
When I am leading a quest, I state equal shares and I mean just that. Items are presented to the group and asked who wants what. If there are several people after one item, they roll for it. Nice, simple, open and honest.
Unless I am using my evil characters when I tell the others characters they will get what I give them, and if they go along with that, all the more for me....:D
-
Well, if you have a character who has been looking month's on end for a certain item (say an ioun stone) and one is looted and someone rolls for it who doesn't need it and wins and just sells it for coin...that doesn't sound fair to me. I think if someone wants to use the item they should get preference over someone who will just liquidate it. So far I have had no problems with party members I've been with respecting that.
-
If they are going to sell it for coin, gives you another chance to be the buyer, no? :) I agree it would be very disappointing to not win the roll though, but hey, rolling the bones is the fair way to do it, without all the who has what in their inventory, who's what level, and who's what class hubub... just my 2 cents. What amounts to a legal document regulating looting seems ludicrous to me.
-
LC: Armour of GodLike Proportions. Its Fullplate.
+5 AC Bonus... +5 Universal Saves....
Oh yes! Im rolling for that!
Annoying player: Yeah, me too.
LC: Eh? Your a mage... you can't even wear armour!
Annoying player: So? I'll sell it to my friend for some coin
LC: What?!? Its a bloody one in a million chance of dropping, I'll likely never see it drop again! I just lost an SS... and spent 5 hours running around in the Deep for that! Im the only one in the group who CAN use it!
Just an example of the type of things that "used" to happen, hence why DMOE set up the above policy. Most of us at the time signed it, and I and others I play with still keep to it today, simply because it makes the most sense.
When your a wizard searching for those Robes of Epic Resistance that only mages can use... and the Fighter walks off with it from the loot sharing with a smirk simply because "I like having a collection of cool stuff I will never ever use" .... you begin to realise that ridiculous legal document for looting is actually a clever idea.
-
You raise some nice emotive things here, LC. And let me also say that I don't go with stealing from a party unless it is done with a GM and rp'd. However...
I might actually want to rp my character like a thieving, conniving, money-grubbing b&*%#d and so (win it in a roll and) sell it to a member of the team for the highest value I can get. Or perhaps even swap it with another player for something of value to my character.
I might actually like collecting stuff.
I might also say that "Ooh, that is the item I have been looking for, for years!"
But at the end of a day, if a party has rules, then my character can abide with the rules or not, or even stay with the party or not; it's their choice. And at the end of the day, the party can decide on what horrors they visit on characters who do not abide by rules, or not.
I play for fun and the interactions of this world, which are amazing: and any "rules" about sharing treasure or not simply add to it and give my characters more material to interact with.
'Nuff said.
-
I have to agree with Dorganeth. Common sense should prevail and i see no reason why someone would roll for an item they cant use just to pawn it and get maybe 3% of its value or whatever.
I've ben on long excursions set up by 2 characters where they say at the beginning the iron or gems found are theirs and thats fine. Generlly everything else gets split. Insnt society based upon agreements, negotiation.
However, if folk want to roll for a shield they cant use then why not. How about a bit more RP with them saying why? If they say they are greedy so and so's who just collect stuff and/or want the coin well fair enough but it becomes part of their Characters traits and they not get invited next time. You reap what you so dont you (Gawd i've turned into a proper Rofie).
Zoog
-
@Xaltotun
Two points. First, if you don't like this policy, run your own trips, with your own loot rules. I've been on trips where the organizer has said "I get first pick." I've been on trips where there has been RPed stealing of loot (with OOC agreement first). Nothing is wrong with those things - but a lot of players agree with the rationale underlying this particular agreement, so it tends to be the dominant way of handling loot.
Second, to quote L from [lore]handling of loot[/lore]:
One thing I want to throw in here, this is a game clearly but what if it were real? What if you were in a jungle (as an example) with 3-6 people, climbing the mountains, cutting through the trees, fighting those creatures, healing and protecting each other day after day. I guarantee in that case you would definitely put need before greed and I would bet you a good amount of money that even the 'greedy' ones would do it as it would allow them a better chance to survive in the long run. The party dynamics would be quite different than a 'game' because you would have to put need before greed and I feel that is what you should do in the game.
-
I dissagree, If I were to join a group and the pre-start statement was that every person here had equal rights to every item dropped reguardless of... level, class, Need, or Greed etc etc.
*leave group* and go get my lowbie toon
*rejoin group* and hope my dice are lucky... WooHoo!!!
If they are going to sell it for coin, gives you another chance to be the buyer, no? :) I agree it would be very disappointing to not win the roll though, but hey, rolling the bones is the fair way to do it, without all the who has what in their inventory, who's what level, and who's what class hubub... just my 2 cents. What amounts to a legal document regulating looting seems ludicrous to me.
-
Basically what it boils down to is that when going out on a "run", the party should agree on what their "loot policy" is going to be up front in order to avoid discussion and contention at the end.
So it doesn't matter what the selected policy is, as long as everyone who's coming along is fine with it. So if you don't like it, don't tag along and if somebody breaks it, don't invite him/her for the next run. :)
-
And remember to bring up in an IC manner that your character can actually use item X !! :)
Would be ludicrous for someone to not say that "hey, I can actually use that item X!" and instead just go "they just pawned the item X :(" <--- a little rough on the edges of a scenario sketch, but you get the point :D