VARIOUS METHODS OF
SPLITTING UP PARTY TREASURE

As a player I have been in many different kinds of groups with many different kinds of players. This has shown me a wide variety of ways on how different parties or adventuring groups will divide the spoils. And yet, what I have seen may simply be a product of conventional wisdom "around these parts." Players from another State, Province, or even another country further removed may have some very different ideas of how to fairly split up party treasure. Naturally, I can't describe what those may be since I haven't seen them, but I do acknowledge their probable existence.

On the Internet, however, where this paper is scheduled to end up, almost anyone from anywhere may see it. As such, this may be their first opportunity to see how it is done "'round here." Even neighboring States etc. may find the various methods new and worth looking at.

Now, properly roleplayed, there will be extraordinary differences in what characters of differing alignments may consider fair, let alone what their players may think is fair or unfair, and it may be incumbent upon them to have their characters strive for the division of goods in a way even they, the players, know to be unfair. This is perfectly fine and proper, but sometimes it can make for a bad game that isn't very fun for others. For example, if a PC fighter/wizard of "questionable" alignment were so much more powerful than his or her party members, they may be able to insist (maybe even justify) that they get the lion's share, leaving the scraps and uninteresting items for the rest. It is sort of sad and ironic, then, that by roleplaying such a character properly, one may end up bringing the game to a halt. But this is one of the many difficulties of playing a group of characters with, as I said, "questionable" alignments. Fair is not high on their list of priorities, even while most of us insist on fairness in our games, so it can be a problem.

But since this paper is not meant to be an exhaustive list of how every alignment might try to divide treasure under every conceivable circumstance, I will only try to focus on those methods which might normally be considered fair and reasonable.

THE COMMUNE

One fair method (which still rubbed me the wrong way) that I once found myself in could only be described as a sort of communism. Everything within the group was considered party treasure or party funds. Even when a new character with his or her own stuff came into the group, their possessions (that they came in with) were considered party property (and if they didn't like it, they could leave, which was both pressure on the PC to accept and pressure on the player if they wanted to play). As such, their lovely +2 mace may have actually been taken away and given to another member who more typically held a front line position. Magic items and money were frequently redistributed every time a new factor changed the power structure of the group. The mace may have changed hands several times, and if the new member ever came to wish to leave, they might not even be able to claim the mace as their own. Perhaps, ultimately speaking, this commune was highly efficient at a sort of mini maxing of the power of the group, but it did lead to bad feelings on occasions, especially when a party member wanted to leave, for their needs were subservient to the needs of the many.

THE FAIR LEVEL SPLIT

Another method that was very fair (and rubbed me the wrong way from a roleplaying point of view) was the fair level split. Here, everyone's class levels were added up and party treasure was divided on a share/level basis. This worked well for cash and gems and jewelry, but not so well with magic items. If there were several magic items to be divided up, it was assumed the highest level character got to pick first, the next highest picked second, etc. until the items were gone. If you were on the lower end of this scale, you frequently got the shaft, and repeatedly so. But even the higher level types could see this wasn't exactly fair, so it was modified. The next time we had some items to split up all the items from before were again put into a common pool. Again, the characters would pick from this pool until everyone had picked. This would continue, repooling items and picking after each adventure, until finally every party member had a pick. Then it was declared these magic items were fixed, no longer to be pooled, and the process would start all over again.

When it was pointed out that this still meant the highest level characters would always end up with the very best magic items, it was simply decided this was still fair, as they perhaps deserved it since they brought more to the group's power and earned more. And though you would never realistically have as much xp as the higher party members would, you could conceivably end up identical in level (the experience tables being arranged the way they are). Then one might randomly determine who picked first since we'd all be equal in level, but this never happened in actual practice as games frequently do not last long enough to take such a plan to fruition.

Besides, this entire system was based on concrete numerical things (like what level everyone was) when in fact such things may not be so clear cut or quantified to the actual characters, so I didn't like it from a roleplaying point of view as well. It still could be considered fair, however.

Speaking of numerical things, multiclassed characters had to calculate what level they would be considered for the purposes of splitting up treasure in this manner. One method for this that I liked was simply to average the levels of each of their classes and add 1 more level for each class beyond the first. For example, a fighter/mage/cleric of 10/11/10 level would be considered (10+11+10)/3 + 2 = 12.33 rounding down or 12th level for the purposes of splitting up treasure.

OFF THE TOP

Another method simply took certain expenses into account before the division of treasure. For example, out of the recently acquired cash, a Raise Dead spell might be purchased for Kendrick the Fallen before subsequent division (and frequently, there may have been little or nothing left to divide). Not everybody liked this as Kendrick may have died due to his own stupidity (he may even make of habit of that sort of thing, until his luck ultimately runs out, but not before burning off thousands of gold pieces). What is or is not fair under these conditions is not always so clear (and probably even depends on the player's alignments (not the character's alignment)). After such expenses were taken off the top, any other method of division could subsequently be used in tandem with "off the top."

THE PARTY FUND

The "party fund" was generally considered better than the "off the top" method. Here, after each adventure, the fund was considered an equal member as far as cash, gems, and jewelry were concerned. Thus, if there were 6 party members, such things would be divided 7 ways, the extra division of cash going into the party fund. The party member worthy of the most trust would usually take care of the fund. Simple majority rule of all surviving member would decide if, when, and on what such funds might be spent. If the majority wanted to bring Kendrick back, for example, and the fund was sufficient, then it would be done. If the fund was lacking it either wouldn't be done or other party members could contribute (but were not so forced to do so). This was generally considered very fair. Naturally, if the surviving members decided Kendrick were "better off" where he was, then nothing would be spent (except perhaps funeral expenses, but those are relatively inexpensive, even a high quality funeral costing less than 100 GP ($10,000) on my world).

Besides the extraordinary expenditures such as for Raise Dead spells, the party fund would also usually pay for room and board for everyone, a wagon or horses if they were needed by the group, information, bribes, ships (to buy them or book passage), and frequently more ephemeral magic used by all, such as healing potions or scrolls if such things could be obtained. In fact, many ephemeral items like healing potions may have simply been put directly into the "party fund" rather than split up as magic items as it was generally believed such things would ultimately be used for the good of all anyway.

INDIVIDUAL REIGN

Individual choice was frequently too important to lose for some. I don't mean, for example, that more chaotic and less lawful PCs insisted upon this, but perhaps more chaotic and less lawful players would insist on every man for themselves. They simply didn't want others making decisions for them. If the party needed something then they could decide at that time to ante up or not and didn't need to relinquish any control over "their" stuff beforehand. This is, of course, fair, but it did sort of stop the game every time some little thing needed to be paid for. Some will say, "So what? That's life." and they'd be right. It may in fact be the very roleplaying of these little things that they really enjoy, but others often would rather spend less time concerned with that part of the game and concentrate on the bigger story.

THE GAMBLE OR THE ROLL

Cash aside, it was usually the actual magic items that concerned most players. How to fairly divvy them up was a matter that concerned everyone. One method commonly used is the GAMBLE. (In fact, certain magic items like a stone of good luck seem to have been made for this method of division). Here, each player (actually, each character is really doing this, so I guess dice or some other random method is available to them) rolls the dice (usually percentiles). The highest result got to pick first, then the next highest, etc. until all had a pick. At this time everyone might roll again and repeat the process (assuming there is still more to divide). Another method has selection go back up the list, starting with the player who picked last and ending with the player who picked first, giving them perhaps the strongest pick as well as the weakest. If there was still more, the party could roll again or go down the list again, but that many items at one time are pretty rare.

This method is not free of problems. Sometimes it is hard for a player to accept the fact a party member may have augmented his roll with magic (sort of cheating), but unless that player's character actually knew of the luck stone, they'd be forced to take it, and few players like doing that. (I recall one thief had three such stones no character knew about but every player knew about. And adding insult to injury, he obtained 2 of those by stealing them during the adventure, again keeping such information away from the other characters but not from the other players. It really ticked us off). But that is a question of roleplaying and not one of a division of goods. Now it might happen that characters could run into a string of bad luck, never getting a good pick or finding themselves at the top of the list. It sort-of sucks when that happens, doesn't it? This is especially true if it happens to you. So one may wish to alter the standard GAMBLE.

THE WEIGHTED ROLL

This was a rather odd method I came across once, but it seemed to work. Each character counted their personal non-ephemeral magic items. (These are permanent ones or ones that will last beyond a single use or two. Swords, daggers, armor, rings, rechargeable wands, staves, or rods, and other charged items with more than a few charges are some example of non ephemeral items. Items like potions or scrolls, arrows or bolts, or one shot use items were ephemeral and excluded, unless they were so powerful the majority of the characters wanted them considered as permanent). The character with the most items set the standard with N items. Each player got to roll the percentile dice N+1 times minus the number of permanent items they had. So the person with the most got to roll just once and a person with no items could roll N+1 times. Each character, after rolling however many times they were allowed, got to keep the very best roll. This weighted method gave the character with fewer items a better chance, and it didn't take that long, and it was considered rather fair. After the determination of the picking order, it was similar to the standard GAMBLE method.

THE EXTRA SHARE

Sometimes the party adopted the practice of dividing out an extra share of cash, but not for a party fund. This extra share was considered a magic item for picking purposes. However they decided upon the picking order, each player would have the option of taking the extra share instead of a magic item until the cash was taken. Sometimes, and this method made more sense to me, if there were N party members and X items (X<N), the cash was divided into N+(N-X)=2N-X shares. Each member would receive a share, leaving N-X shares and X items for a total of N picks. That way each party member would either get a magic item (during the rolling) or an extra share of cash.

A concrete example is frequently of help. Let us say the party has 7 members. After the adventure the group's haul consists of 32,300 GP of coins, gems, and jewelry, and 4 non-ephemeral magic items. This is 3 short of the 7 required so everyone may have an item this time. So, we divided the cash by (7+3) or 10. (Oh, how easy is that?) Thus each party member gains 3,230 GP. Now there are 4 magic items and 3 piles of cash, each also 3,230 GP. The picking order is determined some how and everyone will end up with a magic item or an extra 3,230 GP.

THE FORCED PICK

There are all too often times when certain magic items can only be used properly in the hands of a few (or even only one) party member(s). For example, a +5 holy avenger can only really be effectively used by the paladin (even if the other fighter could use it as a +2 sword or another character could sell it for boat loads of cash), a clerical item must be used by the party cleric, the staff of power may only work for the mage, etc., etc. A lot of the above methods can thus be abused. A mage, for example, realizing no one else has need of such a staff and knowing the list will support more than a single pick for each character, may elect not to take the staff on his first pick (even when it is clearly the best choice) because he would rather take another nice item which can be used by all (like a +3 ring of protection). He knows the staff will be waiting for him later since no one else may use it. This is known as the Class Pass even though it is not a very classy move. Of course it would serve him right if another player took the staff on their turn and sold it, but such actions will ultimately be harmful to the party's potential power.

Some have suggested such class oriented objects must be picked by that character of the appropriate class (COTAC) at their first opportunity, but this forced pick is also unfair as they may not even want such an item. Others then say if such items are not picked right away by the COTAC that anyone can then take and sell them. Some even say the group gets them and may sell them and again divvy up the proceeds from all passed class oriented items. Again, this is fair but will be harmful to the party in the long run.

In the final analysis each character will have to decide what is best for them to have and whether or not letting an item go will be harmful to the party. But to prevent useful items from leaving the party (by being sold to outsiders) and the possible abuse of the class pass, such items may be taken by the party (if not picked) and held in reserve for a future pick or the COTAC must take them and is considered to owe the party the market value of the item. This method still has the possibility of saddling the COTAC with something they simply do not want, but it does prevent the class pass. Finally, if the COTAC still insists the item is not worth their time and the majority of the party agrees, it can then be sold and the proceeds divvied up.

THE GREEDY GRAB

Or it may happen a character will simply go straight for the item of greatest worth, monetarily speaking, and sell it. They may even be totally unconcerned that such an item can be invaluable to a COTAC, but simply take it to sell. This will also hurt the party in the long run, and thus it would not be fair to allow it. Again, under the assumption I confine myself to fairer aspects of picking, the policy may be adopted that no one may pick such an item until each COTAC has had at least one opportunity to procure such an item. All of this assumes there are enough items for everyone, so if the list is short and a COTAC may not even get a turn, this policy may not be fairly enforced.

THE CONSIDERED DISTRIBUTION

Experienced players may simply do what is best for the party. A party leader, the wise cleric, stalwart fighter, or intelligent mage, for example, might assume leadership of the group and distribute items and cash to where they will do the most good. This is different from the commune as the party leader makes these decisions and the items and cash are then considered the personal property of the characters that get them and not group funds which may be redistributed again later on. Or the entire group can act in council to make such decisions rather than an actual leader. Again this is similar to the commune, but ownership is more permanent.

Under this system COTAC usually get the items best for their class while other party members get what is left. Consideration is also given to balance out the number of items. For example, it may be that the cleric is getting too many class items and the thief is getting none. If the opportunity arises to exchange such an item for something the thief can use, this may be done. It is better to have two people doing something with the power of magic than one person doing something while the other magic items hang uselessly at their side.

Also, sometimes under this system in order to maintain a fair balance, items are carried rather than owned for a time. In the above example, the cleric may only have owned one of the three items, the other two being party treasure until such time as an influx of more items could allow them to be officially taken and owned. This allows their use until such time they can be divvied up fairly and thus does not deny the party their power until then, making the party stronger. Again, this is very similar to the commune, but items are eventually owned, and once owned they may not be taken away without consent.

All of these methods may be used piecemeal. That is, take what you like and leave the rest, fitting various aspects or pieces of each method into a composite method all characters can agree upon. Frequently glossed over rather than used as a rich roleplaying session, the players usually do this rather than roleplaying their characters deciding how things will be done. But whether the players do it or the characters do it, avoid the mistake of not doing it before you acquire something worth having, or a nasty fight might ensue and generate bad feelings for a long time to come between characters (or players) and this may even break up the group, so watch out. A little forethought goes a long way.

Five years after writing this article, I decided to write some additional options or comments on this topic, and I have appended them here for your consideration. In that time, third edition, or 3e, has come to light, so some 2e methods, like the fair level split, may not work as well in the new system, or the same way. But, as I mentioned, using OOC (Out Of Character) information to make IC (In Character) decisions is usually a bad idea, anyway.

The IOU Method was first partially developed under IRC gaming, and later modified under PBEM gaming, and has been most recently modified and discussed by several GMs and players. The form presented below is one possible admixture of many ideas, but the majority of those who have conferred with me on this matter seem to think it works.

THE IOU METHOD

The following complex and lengthy method is usually considered fair, and its adoption often alleviates bookkeeping chores for those who dislike a certain level of detail - while the GM and perhaps one other - the player of the party treasurer - accept the responsibility and burden of doing it, thus freeing up the other players' time for "better" things.

The method came about mostly due to Internet play, where players came into and went out of the group with surprising frequency. This fact made communal ownership of many items difficult, and often the only way to fairly divide things up was to sell powerful magic items and split the proceeds immediately, but this tended to weaken the group's potential power, and that could often lead to the demise of everyone in it. This is generally considered a bad thing.

SHAREHOLDERS

The IOU method essentially holds magic items in trust, and as the property of those who found it - hereafter known as the item's shareholders - until such time as the item can be fairly split up with more items acquired later, or sold, or traded, or an individual party member wishes to buy the item from the shareholders - i.e. buy 100% of all shares in it. At such a point, these rules no longer apply and the person simply owns that item.

The benefits of individual ownership of an item may not be obvious to some, so in case you don't see them, individual ownership allows one to use the item as they see fit, whenever they wish, to depart with it without comment, or to sell or trade it without apology. Otherwise it usually takes a majority vote to do such things, and the item may always be taken from them and given to another.

STEWARDSHIP

The item, while held in trust, will usually be carried and used by one person, and this person will hereafter be known as that item's steward. At least initially, shareholders will all own equal shares of an item held in their trust. If it remains so, a simple majority vote will determine who the item's steward will be. If at some later time, however, shares are sold or purchased and ownership of shares is no longer equal, the majority shareholders' vote will determine who the item's steward will be. Naturally, if any one person comes to own 51% or more of an item, they will always be able to determine the stewardship of the item. To the nearest 1%, each percent owned should be considered 1 vote out of 100 votes, and the majority votes rule. Thus, even the largest shareholder, if they have 50% or less of the shares, may be out voted by remaining shareholders voting together.

A provision is made, however, that though the majority shareholder(s) may determine the item's steward, they may not sell the item. It still takes a simple majority vote of party members - not shareholders - to decide to sell a magic item that is held in trust by party members. Any new member who does not own at least 1% of the item gets no votes in this regard, but if they have at least 1%, their vote to sell or not counts as much as anybody else's vote.

Normally, the item is carried and used by whomever the majority shareholders in the party feels should carry it. As previously mentioned, this person is called the item's steward, and they carry and use the item as they see fit, and no one should complain about how the item is being used by the steward. If a shareholder does not like it, they simply ask for a shareholders' vote to reconsider whom that item's steward should be, and if the majority owners change their mind and agree it has been used unwisely, the item is passed along to its new steward, but if they do not change their mind, it stays with its old steward.

If an item is lost, stolen, or destroyed, or even depreciates in value during its use by its steward, this is generally considered the cost of doing business, and the steward is not normally expected to pay this back. The shareholders simply eat the loss.

THE PARTY FUND or PF

There is usually a party fund. This may contain just cash, or it may contain ephemeral items the party finds, or for which the party fund is used to purchase. For example, being flush with cash, the party may decide to use some of the party fund to buy several healing potions or scrolls. These are group property now and will usually be used as the majority sees fit - or, more often - as their steward sees fit. Potions, scrolls, or other certain items that are discovered during an adventure may be split up later, or sold, or may be voted to go directly into the party fund. Or the party may decide to have the party fund buy the items, and the cash from the fund for that would then be split up.

Of course, the steward of an item most often decides when to use an item under times of stress, like during combat, since there is no time to hold a meeting and take a vote. It is assumed, however, whenever the party has time and makes a vote on how to use such an item, its steward just hands it over or complies with party wishes. If it were not so, they could just vote the item moved to another steward, so this usually goes without saying - I mention it only to be complete.

Now the party fund may be assembled in a variety of ways. One common method is if there were N party members, liquid assets - gems, jewelry, coins or cash, or any items immediately sold, magic or otherwise - that would normally be divided N ways would instead be divided (N+1) ways, the extra share going directly into the party fund.

Another common method is occasionally the members each kick in X gold pieces when more working capital is needed, and they have the cash to spare. If not, well, no one said you could buy what you could not afford, no matter what method you use.

There is no fixed method of assembling the party fund - the only provision is that all current party members should own the fund equally and contribute to it equally, even if some must place an IOU into the party fund to do this.

The party fund is used to pay for things like room and board at the inn while traveling and adventuring, ship passage, sage advice, bribes, Identification spells, appraisal costs, horse and buggy rental, or anything the majority members feel they need and wish the PF (party fund) to pick up. This often saves a great deal of time, reducing N separate transactions into 1 transaction, and prevents the entire group coming to a halt and deciding who is going to pay for what every time some expense arises. It also allows one person (or one player) to handle this bookkeeping chore, some of whom enjoy it or don't mind it, while freeing others who can't stand that level of detail to concentrate on more meaningful things - like clues or story threads or character development.

Granted, the party fund may greatly alleviate some game bookkeeping burdens placed upon the GM and the players, but there are good IC reasons for doing this, too. For example, one character may be better at haggling and getting good deals than the others, or might get better group rates. Or one person will not forget to book passage for all members, while one member might forget to get themselves a ticket in a timely manner, and thus be left behind. There are others examples, but I won't go further into them here.

Now, when a potential new member wishes to join the party, like buying into any partnership, they should put some money up front so they can be equal partners. For example, if the group contained 5 members, and the PF was 10,000 GP, essentially each member would own 1/5th of that, or 2,000 GP. A new member's "buy in" would be 2,000 GP in this example. If they did not have it, most often they could owe it to the party fund and would place an IOU for 2,000 GP into the fund. During the next treasure split, such an IOU probably would be paid off by the new member's share before any remainder went to them - i.e. that 2,000 GP would come right off the top of any money going to them for their share.

It's important for new members to buy in, lest they unfairly take advantage of party funds. Also, by buying in, when a party member wishes to depart, this can also fairly be done by dividing up the PF into equal shares and passing them out. Then they may depart, their own cash back in hand, and not be upset over any momentary loss. After all, the party fund is meant to just save them time - not suck their cash from them.

It should be noted that if the party fund contains ephemeral items, their value should be known and counted as cash. But the items will remain with the party. For example, if the PF of a 5-member group had 8,000 GP and one healing potion worth 2,000 GP, the PF would be considered to have 10,000 GP, and a departing member would get 1/5th of 10,000, or 2,000 gold. The PF would then have 6,000 GP and the healing potion in it after the member departed. If all agreed, the departing member might just take the healing potion for their share, but it is up to the majority to decide if they wish to let this item go or not.

In fact, if the party feels the PF cannot afford to be depleted just then - due to a foreseeable future expense - the departing member may have to accept an IOU for 2,000 GP. This IOU is placed in the party fund, though, and should be paid off as soon as possible. While it's there, however, it is considered a debt and treated as a debt for calculation purposes. For example, if you need to know the value of the party fund, any IOUs in it to be paid to it are counted as cash, just as any IOUs it owes to others should be counted as debts.

EXAMPLE:
PARTY FUND
6,000 GP
IOU Mandy, 2,000 GP Signed PF
IOU PF, 6,000 GP Signed Robert.

The value of the above party fund would be considered 10,000 GP.

At certain times the PF may reach zero funds. This makes it harder to do business without any working capital, so the party may decide each current member should ante up X GP - perhaps whatever the poorest member can afford. But since all members match this, the party fund once again has working capital. For example, Robert, a new member, is the poorest and can only afford 200 gold, so the other 4 members put in 200 gold each as well, and the PF will then be 1,000 gold pieces.

Similarly, the PF may grow ridiculously large and flush with cash. Either some items should be purchased, or the group may decide to fairly pass out some portion of it. For example, in a 5-member group with a PF of 50,000 GP, they may decide 40K of this is better put back into their own pockets, and divvy up 40K amongst the 5 members equally, each getting 8,000 GP, and leaving the PF with only 10,000 GP in it, which they feel is more than enough working capital.

Depending on the group, the PF may be used to purchase things like Raise Dead or Resurrection Spells, but that's up to the majority. It may also be used to help pay for training, equipment, spell research, or whatever the majority thinks is in their best interest. Often times many will feel such expenses are the individual's responsibility, and not wish the PF to be used for such things.

If somebody has strong feelings about not paying for certain things, they should make this clear well BEFORE such an expense arises, and the party agrees to never use the PF to purchase such things. If the majority still wishes to do so and can't afford it out of personal funds, they should dissolve the party fund, split it evenly, and those members who truly wish to make this purchase should pay for it. Then the fund may be reassembled in a manner the majority wishes.

As new potential party members come to join, they buy into the PF, and as they leave, the PF is dismantled, divided evenly, and then reassembled under new membership. Items owned by the fund are counted as their cash equivalent.

At all times all members own the PF equally, and anything the majority does with it is considered the cost of doing business. For example, if the PF contains a healing potion and the party uses it on Robert, that cost is absorbed by the PF and Robert is not generally expected to pay that back.

Even if a minority member disagrees with a particular expenditure, it will be assumed they cannot leave the party before the expense, but only after, and their fair share will be calculated after the expenses are paid. For example, the party decides to buy a Raise Dead spell for Kendrick, but Mandy dislikes Kendrick and doesn't want her money being used thus. Too bad. The majority has spoken. She has to accept this. She cannot leave the party, take her share of the PF before the Raise Dead is paid for, and depart, but must wait until after the Raise Dead is purchased. After that she may stay or leave - it's up to her - but no one can circumvent the majority will and do an end run around expenses the majority accept. The only exception to this is if Mandy - or whomever - made it clear long before such occasions arose, that they would in no way contribute to certain expenses, and the party agreed to this provision. Failing that, the minority member must accept such expenditures as the cost of doing business.

This is all pretty much straight forward, but it gets complicated when valuable magic items enter the party. It is assumed, of course, all members present in the party when the item was obtained will own it equally. If they sell it, the cash is divided as normal, perhaps with one extra share going to the party fund if the item was sold immediately, but if sold later, the party may have different members, so any proceeds only go to the owners, or shareholders, of that item. As you can see, the party fund never really owns a share of such an item, so it doesn't complicate things when the party fund must be dismantled or reassembled.

But selling powerful magic items for cash tends to weaken a party's potential power, so they decide to keep and use it and place the item into some steward's hands to be held and used in trust. Some note will be made to avoid confusion in the future as to who actually owns this item - i.e. who was a party member when it was acquired. We will call this ITEM-1, and these members the shareholders of ITEM-1.

If a new member wishes to join, they may do so, but they do not own any part of ITEM-1. They may even be made steward of ITEM-1, but they do not own it or any portion of it. They may buy it from the shareholders, if they wish and have the means, or buy some shares of it from some current shareholders, but that's another matter. Naturally, ITEM-1 is appraised and note is made of its value if the party wishes, but this is not really necessary until one wishes to actually buy or sell shares in it. Since its value may rise or fall, now, or in the future, ITEM-1's value is considered whatever the current market will bear, and the value of any shares will be calculated upon current values.

If a party member who owns part of ITEM-1 wishes to leave, it gets tricky. ITEM-1 should be appraised if it hasn't already been appraised, so its current value may be known. Suppose the departing member owned 1/5th of it since 5 members found it - i.e. each shareholder owned 20% of ITEM-1. It is assumed, for the good of the party, they cannot demand ITEM-1 be sold so they can get their fair share in cash immediately. The Party Fund, on the other hand, may not really be used to pay off this share either since new members own part of this fund but they don't own any of ITEM-1. You can't really use somebody else's money to pay off your debts or buy things for yourself - not fairly, anyway.

Normally, then, the shareholders of ITEM-1 would pay off the departing member's share. If some of them didn't have the cash from their personal funds, or didn't want to use their cash on hand right then, they might be allowed to borrow it from the party fund, placing an IOU into the fund for what they borrowed. By paying off this share of the item, the remaining owners are not really going into debt since they now all own larger shares in the item - they are just more heavily invested in the item - just as a person would be if they bought an item for themselves - the only difference being instead of owing 100% of an item, they own less than 100% of it, though more than they did before.

Some members may not wish to invest more heavily into an item, but would rather sell their shares as soon as possible. Departing members are like this, but one need not depart to sell their shares. It is assumed, however, shares may only be sold to other party members - since all party members are considered trustworthy. An exception would be made if the majority share holders - not majority share holder vote - considered an outsider a good risk, and thus shares may be sold to such a person for cash, magic, or even an IOU. In this way, no one is ever forced to buy more shares of an item they do not really want.

The party fund, in fact, may even be used to buy shares. Such shares should be considered as cash when the party fund is dismantled or reassembled.

Departing members usually prefer cash, and the PF may absorb whatever IOUs are necessary to cover this amount, but the PF may not always be able to afford to lend out this much capital, however, so the departing member may have to take a personal IOU from some shareholders, or from some party member who may be willing to buy out their share.

As you can see, a newer member may buy out the departing member's share, and thus become part owner of the item, or a shareholder of the item, even though they had no part in originally acquiring it. For example, Mandy wishes to leave, and her share of ITEM-1 is worth 15,000 GP. Robert, a new member, happens to have 15K GP and wouldn't mind being part owner of ITEM-1, so he buys Mandy's shares.

Under this system, it is considered the cost of doing business to accept IOUs from other party members when they come into or leave the group - whether you like the person or not. Fair division may not otherwise be possible. It is assumed all party members are good for their debts and all will pay them off as soon as possible. The money may later be sent somewhere of the departing member's choosing, or left somewhere for them to pick up, but eventually it will be paid.

It is also assumed, however, in such a high-risk occupation as adventuring, that if a member permanently dies and their estate cannot cover their debts, that their debts die with them. Though assets of the estate may be passed along to one's heirs, it is considered socially unfair to pass along debt - though one's debtors do have first crack at the assets of one's estate.

Any outstanding, unpaid IOUs from them to you, or to the party fund, will be torn up, if their personal holdings will not cover them. This is part of the cost of doing business. Of course, this sometimes provides incentive for others to want to bring them back to life - ha ha ;-)

Thus, a dead member's equipment, magic items, and other personal holdings (i.e. their estate) may be liquidated, and their debts or IOUs should be paid if possible before their beneficiaries can claim their inheritance. Rather than sell potentially powerful items to outsiders, party members may buy them, or the PF may be used to buy them, instead, if the cash is handy. Or they may accept the IOUs.

For example, Tomothy permanently dies, and he has an IOU to Mandy for 15,000 GP, and a magic staff worth 50,000 GP. Raised Dead or Resurrection is impossible, or has been tried and failed, so Tomothy is gone forever. Rather than sell his Staff to outsiders and lose its potential power, the group retains it, but accepts Tomothy's debts. The group now owes Mandy 15,000 GP, and Tomothy's heirs 35,000 GP.

NOTE: Tomothy's estate are his assets minus his debts - i.e. 50K - 15K = 35K gold pieces.

If Tomothy had no heirs, or a will directing his assets to go to a church or the group or elsewhere, the party would owe those people 35,000 GP. This is not something to be taken lightly, for if they lose the Staff, they may be out 35K to Tomothy's heirs and 15K to Mandy, so they may wish to sell the Staff if they do not wish to risk this much debt. These IOUs go into the party fund, and they must be paid - to be fair.

NOTE: Recall, one basic premise of all this was the assumption we were trying to be as fair as possible. Of course some may choose not to be fair - that's up to them - but the principles laid down here proceed under the assumption one is trying to do the right thing. Also note that there are other fair methods - this statement was meant to imply other methods are unfair, or even aren't as fair, as the IOU Method.

Generally, people of good or lawful alignments will wish to pay off their IOU's as soon as possible, but will not sacrifice basic needs to do so, or go light on professional and necessary expenses. They will, however, refrain from luxuries and expensive desires or other nonessential expenses until their debts are paid. This is not to say people of evil or chaotic alignments won't pay off their debts, but it is generally true they are less trustworthy about such things.

Members may borrow from the party fund, if the majority consider them a good risk, just as the party fund may borrow from a member, if the member is willing to do this and considers the group a good risk. The appropriate IOUs are made and held in trust by the party treasurer - and a back up copy of the books is a pretty wise idea, too.

IOUs and Markers

IOUs may generally be written thus:

IOU (who is owed) amount (how much is owed) signed (Signature of who owes).

EXAMPLE:

IOU Mordiki 500 gold, signed Dalton.

The person in possession of the IOU is its owner (usually the person who is owed). The Party Fund may posses many such IOUs, as the PF is owed, but may actually hold onto the IOUs it owes to departing members as well, since the party is trusted to pay it off, and the departing members may not be able to present the IOU to the party at a later date.

Though the treasurer actually holds these IOUs, just as they hold the PF's cash, they do not really own those IOUs or that cash, but simply hold it in trust for the party. Once an IOU is paid off, the person who owed that debt should reclaim the IOU and tear it up. Failure to produce the IOU might result in them not paying it - or paying it off without getting the IOU back might lead to somebody trying to collect on it twice. When the party drops off some cash to pay a departed member their IOU, the treasurer will destroy that IOU for that former member.

A "MARKER" is a more generalized IOU in that whoever holds it is owed the money. For example, just because some stranger found Dalton's IOU on Mordiki's dead body doesn't mean Dalton has to pay off this stranger. The debt may have died with Mordiki. But a "MARKER" is another matter, and whoever holds it is owed the debt, so markers can often be treated like bearer bonds and are almost as good as cash if the signature is well known and trusted. Often such signatures will be well known individuals, or organizations, like churches or governments.

IOU Bearer of this marker 500 gold, signed Dalton.

By the careful use of IOUs, cash flow problems may be deferred or avoided for a time, and power may more readily be retained within the party - which, if anything, might tend to lead to greater success and more profits, and thus, hopefully, paid off IOUs. The party fund, while not meant to pay for more than petty expenses, also helps as a slush fund wherein IOUs may be stored, created or paid off, a bit more freely than trying to convince an individual to lend one money. All this tends to save time which may be used better elsewhere.

OTHER SUBMITTED METHODS

Now, if you feel you or your group has a good method of splitting up treasure that you really don't see represented here, I encourage you to write and describe it to me. I may incorporate the method into this article and place it in the above text - and give you credit for it, too.

Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praises, Critiques, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, Or Submissions.)

VARIOUS METHODS OFSPLITTING UP PARTY TREASURE