Divvying the Loot [Archive] - Wizards Community

Divvying the Loot [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Grunj
06-01-06, 05:30 PM How do you treat magic items when it comes to dividing up the loot? Say you "find" a +1 sword. MSRP is 2,310 gp. Bob the Fighter decides he wants to keep it as his share of the treasure.

Is he charged 2,310 gp or 1,155 gp? Since the item is only worth 50% of it's value if sold, do you use "retail" or "wholesale" to determine magic items' value as part of a treasure?
Zcorpio
06-01-06, 06:02 PM When we split the loot in my group, items are given to those to whom it will be most usefull. If the item replaces a characters old items, those are usually placed in the stockpile, and another player can take it if it would work better than an old item.
The rest of the items are sold, and the gold of these are piled with the gold gotten from the adventure. All the gold is then shared equally.

Granted, ome character will get more of the magical loot on ocations, but over time we have found this to work well. In the end we all end up approximatly the same value in magical loot.
sizbut
06-02-06, 07:46 AM If you have to work it in such an exact way then your not really working as a team. As Zcorpio says you need to be figuring it out in terms of who can use the items best, who got a good deal last time, etc. ie. useability, team interest and balance.

Sure any scrolls and wands go to the teams magic casters, but normally so that they can then use them in the teams interest. Do you make them pay for an item only they could safely use anyway? What if they don't want it and are more keen on that ring of protection? If you do then it would only be fair for the wizard to charge for each fireball cast for the team and clerics to demand money before each cure light wounds.

Similarly fighters need to talk to each other and agree; for example "you get the sword this time, I'll take the amour".

My own group is about to split the spoils and have noticed that there's little of interest for the group's barbarian. The result is that having agreed who gets what, the rest of us are all chipping in to get the barbarian some materworks armour and weapons - because its in our own interests.
Dheran
06-02-06, 09:36 AM I've got to go along with Zcorpio. If you're fretting about even portions you're probably not making effective use of your finds. In particular, you should only consider selling items at half price if they're not useful to any of the party members.

Let the party members who can make more effective use of items have them. For instance, you can maximize your spellcasting options by giving most of the scrolls not to casters, but to rogues with good Use Magic Device numbers. Then you'll be more effective when you come across something with high DR and you really need to pour on lots of magic in a hurry. In a similar fashion, don't give your healing potions to the clerics; spread them around. This holds for all items that will have the same effectiveness when used by anybody.

Items that differ in effectiveness always go to those who can use them best. Staves go to those with the highest caster level. Archers (rangers and the like) get the best bows and arrows, fighters get the good armor and close-quarters weapons, and your best thrower gets the splash weapons. If these new items replace poorer prior possessions, place the old gear in the pot and continue the distribution.

The point is that if you don't use your gear effectively, you're all going to be poor from paying to bring your party members back from the dead. That's bad economics!

After the item allotment you're left with money, and items that are only useful for their monetary value. Divvy that up among those who didn't get items, so maybe they can buy something useful the next time you're shopping.
Karla
06-02-06, 10:22 AM I take the points about a genuine team not worrying too badly about exact shares. At the same time, I think it's important for everyone to feel that the distribution is fair over time.

With smaller items, we didn't and don't worry overmuch, especially if there was an obvious recipient or if there were an obvious party benefit. But when we came to "bigger ticket" items or when several people could benefit it seemed only fair for those who received them to consider them (at half price) as part of their loot share.

Thinking about this, it also possibly depends on how common magic is in your gameworld. If magic items are pretty much freely available at book price (e.g. Sharn) then it's more reasonable to do a cost-based breakdown as people can freely convert their share of gp to magic as they wish. If magic is "found only" then retaining items in the party regardless of "fair shares" becomes that much more important.
zifflebrinkle
06-02-06, 11:03 AM The absolute fairest way to deal with loot distribution is to sell it all at whatever the market value is. If that is 100% of the items worth (per DMG) then use that, if it is 50% (per DMG) use that. Then everyone is left with an equal share of gold with which they can do anything they choose. The only problem that happens is if you find an item that is an artifact, where a value is very hard to place and the chance of ever finding such an item again is super rare. On those occasions, draw straws and the winner will no longer be eligible for any items of a artifact level until everyone has one. Or someone can buy it off of them...either way.

The problem with the above way is that if people die, or if people have no way of buying magic items or making them, there becomes a large disparity in wealth of the players.

We all simply do the method I described because we are all lawful neutral, and that seemed the "most fair" for the course we had available.
Erak
06-02-06, 12:14 PM Loot distribution is always a sticky subject in even the most level headed parties. Everything can be sailing a long wonderfully with the "we give it to who can use it best" approach until some powerful general utility item comes along that everyone in the party wants to have.

I came up with a loot tracking system for our party that works off of full market price. Basically non-expendable magic loot is put in a pile and people pick in order. The order is originally determined randomly by die roll and then proceeds in order of lowest magic total to highest each round. For example:

Party X:
Fighter has a total loot value of 50,000GP
Wizard has a total loot value of 45,000GP
Bard has a total loot value of 40,000GP

Loot:
Ring of Protection +4, 32,000GP
+2 Longsword of Frost, 18,000GP
+3 Large Steel Shield, 9,170GP
+2 Hide Armor, 4,165GP
Bracers of Armor +5, 25,000GP

Bard chooses first and takes the Ring of Protection +4, Wizard chooses next and takes the Bracers of Armor +5, Fighter chooses last and takes the +2 Longsword of Frost. New totals:

Bard has a total loot value of 72,000GP
Wizard has a total loot value of 70,000GP
Fighter has a total loot value of 68,000GP

Fighter chooses first this time and takes the +3 Large Steel Shield, the Wizard chooses next but seeing nothing he likes passes, the Bard then chooses taking the +2 Hide Armor. New totals:

Fighter has a total loot value of 77,170GP
Bard has a total loot value of 76,165GP
Wizard has a total loot value of 70,000GP

On the next adventure the Wizard will get first pick, followed by the Bard and Fighter respectively.I like this system for very simple reasons......it makes sure that all players are equally rewarded and keeps the party members in parity. It doesn't mean that loot gets sold.......nor that the player with the most charisma sitting at the table ends up with everything because they are a slick talker.

It does involve a bit of work maintaining the list though. :D
Bulletproof_Condom
06-02-06, 01:29 PM How do you treat magic items when it comes to dividing up the loot? Say you "find" a +1 sword. MSRP is 2,310 gp.Dude just used the term MSRP when talking about D&D. That rocks so hard.
I was going to give you two-dozen cookies, but the boards won't let me, so here.
:cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie:
:cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie:

Anyway, yeah, we usually split the swag based on the item's full value. If you choose to sell an item rather than keeping it or trading it somewhere, that's your loss (practically and mathematically).

Plus doing it this way just makes more sense in terms of character wealth. 'Cause if you were creating a character at that level, you wouldn't halve all the item prices because that's what it's worth on resale.
Crash01234567890
06-02-06, 01:56 PM It really depends on your characters and their views. Generally just splitting the treasure works, but some characters clash, both IC and OOC with this idea and fill it isn't fair. When this happens the list method above is a good idea, and so is simply comparing it all to money.

For instance the group has found
+! Longsword (2315)
+1 Fullplate (2650)
+1/MW Quarterstaff (2600)
3067 gp

Divided evenly between four people everyone should get 2658 gp.
So the guy with the fullplate gets it and 8 gp, while the guy who didn't get anything magic gets straight 2658 gp.

Really it depends a lot on group cohesion and alignment as to what the characters would do so figure it out IC no OOC.
Norade
06-02-06, 04:16 PM I say let the characters work it ut in game and let the DM sort them out if things go wrong.
Grunj
06-02-06, 09:28 PM I should probably mention that in real-life I'm an Accountant, so stuff like this is what I get paid to do and I tend to think about it...alot.

The problem I have with the 50% loot rule is it creates a big disparity between wealth and income. The +1 Longsword is worth 2,315 gp, but you can only dispose of it for 1,157 gold and 5 silver. In a game as heavily wealth-influenced as D&D 3.5, that's a tough thing to do to the PC's.

I'm thinking about houseruling a special form of polymorph item spell that allows a caster with the relevant item creation feat to change the form of a magic item to another form of the same general category without affecting the enchantment. That way the +3 Trident that nobody particularly wants can be changed to a +3 longsword that can do the Fighter who specialized in longswords some good.

I like BC's point about a person's choice of whether or not to sell an item. I immediately pictured Baldor the Packrat Fighter with a Bag of Holding that contains every bit of useless magical loot he ever found...

"Salve of Slipperiness? Just a sec, I know it's in here somewhere...Aha! Here it is, right next to the Darkskull."
BW0222
06-03-06, 01:52 AM Grunj,

Nice Method
If everyone is playing nice they typically just agree on stuff. For us:

First, immediately replace any consumables used by a PC with either a direct replacement or cash. If a wizard used a 25gp scroll, pay them 25gp. If a rogue used a 50gp potion of cure light wounds, pay him 50gp off the top. Never make PCs or players think about using consumables to help others (or you!) out.

Second, give items to the person who can use them the best or are most likely to be able to utilize them for the party. A wand of cure light might be best for the bard if they cleric is busy, a magic sword goes to the fighter, etc. If someone already has something, they toss it back into the party -- either someone else takes it or it goes into the sell pile. Over time, things tend to work out especially if folks are thinking what is the best for the party.

Third, items no one is using (even if assigned to be sold) should be carried by the person best able to use and/or carry it.

Forth, divide the rest of the loot up evenly when you get back to town.

The Perfectly Equal Method

Used to use this for some RPGA games when folks just couldn't play nice. Typically, because they where not likely to be playing together again.

1) Put each on the table with a price tag on it. The sell price (typically 1/2, except for gems, jewels, and trade goods).

2) Total the sales values of all items and any gold.

3) Give each player a ticket for 1/x of the total.

4) If no player wants an item it is sold in town and removed from the table.

5) If only one player wants an item, they take the item and subtract its (sale) price from their ticket. If that exceeds their ticket, they can subtract money from their character sheet also.

6) If two or more players want the item, they bid on it. They can bid with money on their ticket or add money their character has.
a) The winning bidder subtracts the bid from their ticket and (if necessary ) character sheet.
b) The amount they bid over the sell price of the item is added equally to all other player's tickets. If there are four other players and you bid 1500gp for a 1000gp (sale) priced item, you subtract 1500 from your ticket, each other player adds 125gp.
c) If there are any problems with the bidding or if it is taking too long, then the item is immediately sold as in step 4.

7) At the end, players keep any item they "bought" plus any gold on their ticket.

Some DMs replace step 6 with "if two or more players want it, it is sold and removed from the table." Some also add a step to automatically sell any item which exceeds their ticket amount, preventing rich PCs from just buying all the magic for themselves.
mvincent
06-04-06, 01:57 AM Is he charged 2,310 gp or 1,155 gp?The latter.

If more than one PC want the exact same item, you could resort to buying one or more additional copies at regular price and splitting the difference (rarely an issue).
Arkan_Shadesfire
06-04-06, 09:05 AM The problem comes in when you have a lot of magical loot and not much coinage.

I'm running an Eberron campaign at the moment, and we started out with the Forgotten Forge adventure from the back of the Eberron Capaign Setting book. It went okay, a couple characters almost died and one caught filth fever from some dire rats, but the party is based out of Sharn so Remove Disease is easy to come by for a character with a fresh bag of adventuring loot to spend. The problem was, there was a disproportional amount of weapons and armor compared to the goins and gold ingots they found. The
+1 longsword was particularly troublesome, as by itself it cost considerably more than an even share of the monetary treasure--so whever got it was going to be getting way more than everybody else.

Luckily, Sharn is a big city with a very high gp limit, so I just had the players liquidate all the treasure (at full market value) divide the money evenly, and buy their own magic items.

I could've made them sell the items at half price--but that would reduce the reward they got from the adveture. You're supposed to get a certain amount of value in treasure, and reducing part of it by 50% borks the whole thing, so I give the players a one time option to just convert everything to coins at full value only when the treasure can't be divided up evenly.
mvincent
06-04-06, 12:44 PM The +1 longsword was particularly troublesome, as by itself it cost considerably more than an even share of the monetary treasure--so whever got it was going to be getting way more than everybody else.Were they 1st level then? That sounds fairly uncommon, and the (minor) disparity is unlikely to last more than a single session. Plus, most cooperative teams should be able to work it out fine. I consider it part of the game... a cooperative effort to be enjoyed.

I could've made them sell the items at half price--but that would reduce the reward they got from the adveture. You're supposed to get a certain amount of value in treasure, and reducing part of it by 50% borks the whole thingThat is actually the way it is supposed to work. Game play is balanced on that. Giving them full value for their sold items could quickly allow them to accumulate greater than expected wealth, throwing off game balance.

I had a DM that consistently did this, and soon the game became Monty Haul and unchallenging... which eventually (by itself) caused me to find a different group. Generous DM's can actually harm enjoyment without realizing it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Grunj 06-01-06, 05:30 PM	How do you treat magic items when it comes to dividing up the loot? Say you "find" a +1 sword. MSRP is 2,310 gp. Bob the Fighter decides he wants to keep it as his share of the treasure. Is he charged 2,310 gp or 1,155 gp? Since the item is only worth 50% of it's value if sold, do you use "retail" or "wholesale" to determine magic items' value as part of a treasure?
Zcorpio 06-01-06, 06:02 PM	When we split the loot in my group, items are given to those to whom it will be most usefull. If the item replaces a characters old items, those are usually placed in the stockpile, and another player can take it if it would work better than an old item. The rest of the items are sold, and the gold of these are piled with the gold gotten from the adventure. All the gold is then shared equally. Granted, ome character will get more of the magical loot on ocations, but over time we have found this to work well. In the end we all end up approximatly the same value in magical loot.
sizbut 06-02-06, 07:46 AM	If you have to work it in such an exact way then your not really working as a team. As Zcorpio says you need to be figuring it out in terms of who can use the items best, who got a good deal last time, etc. ie. useability, team interest and balance. Sure any scrolls and wands go to the teams magic casters, but normally so that they can then use them in the teams interest. Do you make them pay for an item only they could safely use anyway? What if they don't want it and are more keen on that ring of protection? If you do then it would only be fair for the wizard to charge for each fireball cast for the team and clerics to demand money before each cure light wounds. Similarly fighters need to talk to each other and agree; for example "you get the sword this time, I'll take the amour". My own group is about to split the spoils and have noticed that there's little of interest for the group's barbarian. The result is that having agreed who gets what, the rest of us are all chipping in to get the barbarian some materworks armour and weapons - because its in our own interests.
Dheran 06-02-06, 09:36 AM	I've got to go along with Zcorpio. If you're fretting about even portions you're probably not making effective use of your finds. In particular, you should only consider selling items at half price if they're not useful to any of the party members. Let the party members who can make more effective use of items have them. For instance, you can maximize your spellcasting options by giving most of the scrolls not to casters, but to rogues with good Use Magic Device numbers. Then you'll be more effective when you come across something with high DR and you really need to pour on lots of magic in a hurry. In a similar fashion, don't give your healing potions to the clerics; spread them around. This holds for all items that will have the same effectiveness when used by anybody. Items that differ in effectiveness always go to those who can use them best. Staves go to those with the highest caster level. Archers (rangers and the like) get the best bows and arrows, fighters get the good armor and close-quarters weapons, and your best thrower gets the splash weapons. If these new items replace poorer prior possessions, place the old gear in the pot and continue the distribution. The point is that if you don't use your gear effectively, you're all going to be poor from paying to bring your party members back from the dead. That's bad economics! After the item allotment you're left with money, and items that are only useful for their monetary value. Divvy that up among those who didn't get items, so maybe they can buy something useful the next time you're shopping.
Karla 06-02-06, 10:22 AM	I take the points about a genuine team not worrying too badly about exact shares. At the same time, I think it's important for everyone to feel that the distribution is fair over time. With smaller items, we didn't and don't worry overmuch, especially if there was an obvious recipient or if there were an obvious party benefit. But when we came to "bigger ticket" items or when several people could benefit it seemed only fair for those who received them to consider them (at half price) as part of their loot share. Thinking about this, it also possibly depends on how common magic is in your gameworld. If magic items are pretty much freely available at book price (e.g. Sharn) then it's more reasonable to do a cost-based breakdown as people can freely convert their share of gp to magic as they wish. If magic is "found only" then retaining items in the party regardless of "fair shares" becomes that much more important.
zifflebrinkle 06-02-06, 11:03 AM	The absolute fairest way to deal with loot distribution is to sell it all at whatever the market value is. If that is 100% of the items worth (per DMG) then use that, if it is 50% (per DMG) use that. Then everyone is left with an equal share of gold with which they can do anything they choose. The only problem that happens is if you find an item that is an artifact, where a value is very hard to place and the chance of ever finding such an item again is super rare. On those occasions, draw straws and the winner will no longer be eligible for any items of a artifact level until everyone has one. Or someone can buy it off of them...either way. The problem with the above way is that if people die, or if people have no way of buying magic items or making them, there becomes a large disparity in wealth of the players. We all simply do the method I described because we are all lawful neutral, and that seemed the "most fair" for the course we had available.
Erak 06-02-06, 12:14 PM	Loot distribution is always a sticky subject in even the most level headed parties. Everything can be sailing a long wonderfully with the "we give it to who can use it best" approach until some powerful general utility item comes along that everyone in the party wants to have. I came up with a loot tracking system for our party that works off of full market price. Basically non-expendable magic loot is put in a pile and people pick in order. The order is originally determined randomly by die roll and then proceeds in order of lowest magic total to highest each round. For example: Party X: Fighter has a total loot value of 50,000GP Wizard has a total loot value of 45,000GP Bard has a total loot value of 40,000GP Loot: Ring of Protection +4, 32,000GP +2 Longsword of Frost, 18,000GP +3 Large Steel Shield, 9,170GP +2 Hide Armor, 4,165GP Bracers of Armor +5, 25,000GP Bard chooses first and takes the Ring of Protection +4, Wizard chooses next and takes the Bracers of Armor +5, Fighter chooses last and takes the +2 Longsword of Frost. New totals: Bard has a total loot value of 72,000GP Wizard has a total loot value of 70,000GP Fighter has a total loot value of 68,000GP Fighter chooses first this time and takes the +3 Large Steel Shield, the Wizard chooses next but seeing nothing he likes passes, the Bard then chooses taking the +2 Hide Armor. New totals: Fighter has a total loot value of 77,170GP Bard has a total loot value of 76,165GP Wizard has a total loot value of 70,000GP On the next adventure the Wizard will get first pick, followed by the Bard and Fighter respectively.I like this system for very simple reasons......it makes sure that all players are equally rewarded and keeps the party members in parity. It doesn't mean that loot gets sold.......nor that the player with the most charisma sitting at the table ends up with everything because they are a slick talker. It does involve a bit of work maintaining the list though. :D
Bulletproof_Condom 06-02-06, 01:29 PM	How do you treat magic items when it comes to dividing up the loot? Say you "find" a +1 sword. MSRP is 2,310 gp.Dude just used the term MSRP when talking about D&D. That rocks so hard. I was going to give you two-dozen cookies, but the boards won't let me, so here. :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: Anyway, yeah, we usually split the swag based on the item's full value. If you choose to sell an item rather than keeping it or trading it somewhere, that's your loss (practically and mathematically). Plus doing it this way just makes more sense in terms of character wealth. 'Cause if you were creating a character at that level, you wouldn't halve all the item prices because that's what it's worth on resale.
Crash01234567890 06-02-06, 01:56 PM	It really depends on your characters and their views. Generally just splitting the treasure works, but some characters clash, both IC and OOC with this idea and fill it isn't fair. When this happens the list method above is a good idea, and so is simply comparing it all to money. For instance the group has found +! Longsword (2315) +1 Fullplate (2650) +1/MW Quarterstaff (2600) 3067 gp Divided evenly between four people everyone should get 2658 gp. So the guy with the fullplate gets it and 8 gp, while the guy who didn't get anything magic gets straight 2658 gp. Really it depends a lot on group cohesion and alignment as to what the characters would do so figure it out IC no OOC.
Norade 06-02-06, 04:16 PM	I say let the characters work it ut in game and let the DM sort them out if things go wrong.
Grunj 06-02-06, 09:28 PM	I should probably mention that in real-life I'm an Accountant, so stuff like this is what I get paid to do and I tend to think about it...alot. The problem I have with the 50% loot rule is it creates a big disparity between wealth and income. The +1 Longsword is worth 2,315 gp, but you can only dispose of it for 1,157 gold and 5 silver. In a game as heavily wealth-influenced as D&D 3.5, that's a tough thing to do to the PC's. I'm thinking about houseruling a special form of polymorph item spell that allows a caster with the relevant item creation feat to change the form of a magic item to another form of the same general category without affecting the enchantment. That way the +3 Trident that nobody particularly wants can be changed to a +3 longsword that can do the Fighter who specialized in longswords some good. I like BC's point about a person's choice of whether or not to sell an item. I immediately pictured Baldor the Packrat Fighter with a Bag of Holding that contains every bit of useless magical loot he ever found... "Salve of Slipperiness? Just a sec, I know it's in here somewhere...Aha! Here it is, right next to the Darkskull."
BW0222 06-03-06, 01:52 AM	Grunj, Nice Method If everyone is playing nice they typically just agree on stuff. For us: First, immediately replace any consumables used by a PC with either a direct replacement or cash. If a wizard used a 25gp scroll, pay them 25gp. If a rogue used a 50gp potion of cure light wounds, pay him 50gp off the top. Never make PCs or players think about using consumables to help others (or you!) out. Second, give items to the person who can use them the best or are most likely to be able to utilize them for the party. A wand of cure light might be best for the bard if they cleric is busy, a magic sword goes to the fighter, etc. If someone already has something, they toss it back into the party -- either someone else takes it or it goes into the sell pile. Over time, things tend to work out especially if folks are thinking what is the best for the party. Third, items no one is using (even if assigned to be sold) should be carried by the person best able to use and/or carry it. Forth, divide the rest of the loot up evenly when you get back to town. The Perfectly Equal Method Used to use this for some RPGA games when folks just couldn't play nice. Typically, because they where not likely to be playing together again. 1) Put each on the table with a price tag on it. The sell price (typically 1/2, except for gems, jewels, and trade goods). 2) Total the sales values of all items and any gold. 3) Give each player a ticket for 1/x of the total. 4) If no player wants an item it is sold in town and removed from the table. 5) If only one player wants an item, they take the item and subtract its (sale) price from their ticket. If that exceeds their ticket, they can subtract money from their character sheet also. 6) If two or more players want the item, they bid on it. They can bid with money on their ticket or add money their character has. a) The winning bidder subtracts the bid from their ticket and (if necessary ) character sheet. b) The amount they bid over the sell price of the item is added equally to all other player's tickets. If there are four other players and you bid 1500gp for a 1000gp (sale) priced item, you subtract 1500 from your ticket, each other player adds 125gp. c) If there are any problems with the bidding or if it is taking too long, then the item is immediately sold as in step 4. 7) At the end, players keep any item they "bought" plus any gold on their ticket. Some DMs replace step 6 with "if two or more players want it, it is sold and removed from the table." Some also add a step to automatically sell any item which exceeds their ticket amount, preventing rich PCs from just buying all the magic for themselves.
mvincent 06-04-06, 01:57 AM	Is he charged 2,310 gp or 1,155 gp?The latter. If more than one PC want the exact same item, you could resort to buying one or more additional copies at regular price and splitting the difference (rarely an issue).
Arkan_Shadesfire 06-04-06, 09:05 AM	The problem comes in when you have a lot of magical loot and not much coinage. I'm running an Eberron campaign at the moment, and we started out with the Forgotten Forge adventure from the back of the Eberron Capaign Setting book. It went okay, a couple characters almost died and one caught filth fever from some dire rats, but the party is based out of Sharn so Remove Disease is easy to come by for a character with a fresh bag of adventuring loot to spend. The problem was, there was a disproportional amount of weapons and armor compared to the goins and gold ingots they found. The +1 longsword was particularly troublesome, as by itself it cost considerably more than an even share of the monetary treasure--so whever got it was going to be getting way more than everybody else. Luckily, Sharn is a big city with a very high gp limit, so I just had the players liquidate all the treasure (at full market value) divide the money evenly, and buy their own magic items. I could've made them sell the items at half price--but that would reduce the reward they got from the adveture. You're supposed to get a certain amount of value in treasure, and reducing part of it by 50% borks the whole thing, so I give the players a one time option to just convert everything to coins at full value only when the treasure can't be divided up evenly.
mvincent 06-04-06, 12:44 PM	The +1 longsword was particularly troublesome, as by itself it cost considerably more than an even share of the monetary treasure--so whever got it was going to be getting way more than everybody else.Were they 1st level then? That sounds fairly uncommon, and the (minor) disparity is unlikely to last more than a single session. Plus, most cooperative teams should be able to work it out fine. I consider it part of the game... a cooperative effort to be enjoyed. I could've made them sell the items at half price--but that would reduce the reward they got from the adveture. You're supposed to get a certain amount of value in treasure, and reducing part of it by 50% borks the whole thingThat is actually the way it is supposed to work. Game play is balanced on that. Giving them full value for their sold items could quickly allow them to accumulate greater than expected wealth, throwing off game balance. I had a DM that consistently did this, and soon the game became Monty Haul and unchallenging... which eventually (by itself) caused me to find a different group. Generous DM's can actually harm enjoyment without realizing it.