New GM: How much loot?

[nick012000]

Is there any rule of thumb as to how much loot should be given to players? I don't want to run a Monty Haul campaign, but at the same time I don't want to give out too little, and make things too difficult for the characters.

Anyone got any advice?

 

[RosenMcStern]

In previous RQs there was a variable called the Danger Class of a creature, ranging from 1 to 5 (1=Duck, 5=Dragon). Loot placed could be adjusted according to this variable. Basically, your characters should get some hundred coins each at the end of any moderately challenging scenario - enough to buy a small armor suit or a nonmagical metal weapon.

Remember that the best loot, in most cases, is what you find on dead foes. If they have armour and good weapons, even selling them for half their value provides a lot of cash.

 

[Wolverine]

RuneQuest isn't about how much loot the player characters can stuff into their pockets. It's about exploring Glorantha, and the characters becoming legends in their own lifetimes. If your players want loot and riches, then RuneQuest isn't the game for them.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Don't be too drastic, Wolverine. After all, the PCs can still play Lankhor Mhy cultists if they hunger for riches

 

[zozotroll]

Besides, with the have to donate every time rules for divine spells, if you dont give out a fair chunk of cash, they will be exploreing Glorantha spelless, not a good thing usualy.

 

[nick012000]

RuneQuest isn't about how much loot the player characters can stuff into their pockets. It's about exploring Glorantha, and the characters becoming legends in their own lifetimes. If your players want loot and riches, then RuneQuest isn't the game for them.

Well, I don't have any of the Glorantha books, so I'd be running a game set in a generic fantasy world. :wink:

 

[Mage]

Take the problems one game at a time. I put no loot in for some games and just left cool items for players to find. Obviously there is loot in scenarios, and some missions or games there would be none. If you are in the middle of the north pole here on earth there wont be any treausure, but there might be in some village in africa, or a bank in london.

For many games in my rq campaign there was not loot, but the players looted bad guys' equipment and 'Rune of Chaos' was used as the starter for the campaign, so plenty of loot there. Now four games down the line the players wondered into a vampire's castle and looted the basement. Of course one player took all 9000 pieces of silver, which worked out as 1000 pieces a player.

 

[Wolverine]

Well, I don't have any of the Glorantha books, so I'd be running a game set in a generic fantasy world. :wink:

Fair enough.

If your players are out for loot, then why not make it so it's hard to come by? In reality, people rarely found treasure hoards lying about the place, and many people were so poor that carrying currency or owning jewelery was a novelty. If your setting has magical items, again make them rare. It's not everyday a Wizard, or whoever, creates one.

Best bet is to keep the loot to a bare minimum.

Don't be too drastic, Wolverine. After all, the PCs can still play Lankhor Mhy cultists if they hunger for riches

True. My players tend to go out to make a name for themselves, rather than trying to fill their pockets with loot and riches. Personally, I feel that the latter kind of behavior should be left for games of D&D.

 

[soltakss]

Conan regurlarly looted temples and came away with chesst of loot.

Pirate campaigns are often based around the accumulation of wealth.

Don't restrict games artificially, but don't give too much out.

Decide what you, as a GM, would be comfortable with the PCs doing in the game. Are you happy with them being able to buy a spell every couple of sessions? What about armour and equipment? Do you want paupers or do you want them to be able to equip themselves? Work out the level of spending you would be happy with, then allow them to get treasure according to that level.

But, you have to be realistic. If the PCs break into a merchant's house and loot his strongroom, it would be unfair to have 10SPs, unless he is a really bad merchant or has his treasure stored elsewhere. Similarly, if you rob a bunch of beggars, you wouldn't expect them to have 1000SP gems in their pockets.

Don't forget that any adventurer worth their salt will strip defeated foes of any valuables they have and will sell them or use them later on. You get attacked by 5 bandits on horseback and kill them all, this means that you have 5 horses and 5 sets of equipment/armour plus any money they are carrying. Even if they sell the horses and equipment at a reduced price, they will get a certain amount of money. Do this every session and they will get a fair amount of money.

Also, adventurers tend to go for more lucrative missions. Take out a bunch of bandits in their lair and you get their treasure. Take out a bunch of broos in the wilderness and you get a load of diseases. Hmmm, let me think about which to do ....

 

[weasel_fierce]

be resaonable about it, most of all. Look at what the opposition would realistically have. A few orcs travelling in the woods arent going to have much coin, but their weapons might be valuable. A bear in a cave ? No treasure, unless it ate somebody that had some stuff.

 

[GoingDown]

And if you give too much loot to your player characters, there is always possibility that some strange incidents happen and they lose all their loot and stuff.

And that might lead to other interesting adventures as well.

In my games, normal foes (or townspeople) usually carry 1-15 silvers.

 

[TRose]

I always have made loot in RQ stuff the players could use and not a whole lot of coin. For example you defeat a bandit gang and the leader would have a scale hauberk which then the player could decide who get it.
But loot has always been far less in RQ then in D&D and similar games.
For example. what fighter uses a scale hauberk in D&D, they mostly go directly to Plate armor turning their nose up at the lesser armor. And magi c items are also far less common and not near as powerful and flashy as in D&D . Common magic items in the past have been thing like power storing crystals and items that had "Runespells" enchanted on them such as a ring with the disruption spell enchanted on it..
Might state my favorite has always been one shot items like potions and teaching scrolls that would allow you to increase some skill 1-4% .

 

[atgxtg]

Hmm, seems like people have missed one of the most obvious ways to get money. Work for it.

Lots of RQ adventures have the characters getting hired to work form someone in exchange for room, board and pay. Typically the money rewards were rather light by the standards of other FRPGs. On the other hand, such character usually got a break in training, equipment, and magic available from the employer and his contacts.

Also many rewards can and should be driven by the story, campaign, and characters rather than money driven. Less "how much loot did we get off the bodies?", but more like "Yes. We saved the village, and now the villagers will trust us and tell us where to find XYZ, and the smith will now make master quality swords for us!."

As a guide I'd say you should give them enough to survive and buy gear at a rate that you feel comfortable with for your campaign. If they even STOP complaining about not having enough money, then you are giving them too much. Until they get really good and powerful, they should always wish they had just a little more so that they can do something else.

It's harder to nail it down closer than that, as people have different styles of running and playing. What might work for one group could completely unbalance another. For instance, I've been in groups where fairly early on a character got a dragon hoard worth a fortune. It wasn't a problem as the character was the rightful heir to the throne and used the wealth to finance an army to go to war. But that was the central focus of that particular campaign, and the GM knew what the player was going to do with the money before he gave it out. If the player was planning on running down to the nearest magic shop, the GM wouldn't have done that.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Conan regurlarly looted temples and came away with chesst of loot.

But he'd regularly spent it all on wine, women & song by the start of the next tale. One problem with RPG inflation is that PC's will price them selves like supermodels "I don't get out of bed for less than 1,000 GP", but spend money like impovrished students "What, the inn keeper wants to charge 1GP for a room, and food is extra - stuff that, I'll camp out in the woods!"

How much money you give the PC's isn't important, providing you regularly relieve them of (nearly) all of it. That way they need to go on the next adventure in order to pay off their bills and contiunue to live in the manner to which they are becoming accustomed...

 

[atgxtg]

How much money you give the PC's isn't important, providing you regularly relieve them of (nearly) all of it. That way they need to go on the next adventure in order to pay off their bills and contiunue to live in the manner to which they are becoming accustomed...

Unless a GM is running in a way that money isn't important to the campaign. Or it the GM actually enforces supply & demand.

For instance, while a character might have a cart full of coins, that doesn't increase the amount of product or soruces available.So while a PC might be able to pay for 12 suits of plate, actually finding a dozen suits, or an armorer who is available to craft 12 suits

A lot of GMs sort of run RPGs like Mononpoly. Only the players seem to worry about things like money, while shopkeepers have some sort of supply of unlimited funds and materials.

A little bit of economics can make a big difference. Just becuase a group might have a million SPs to spend, doesn't mean that there is a million SP worth of good in a shopt (or even in a entire town) to buy.

THere there are all those poor starving people are going to be sorely tempted by a nice rich and underprotected (if a PC is hauling around lots of wealth, he is underprotected) mark. I have little doubt that at one time or another, Conan woke up to discover that some wench had ran off with his gold while he was passed out.



On the flip side, the supply & demand thing can pop up when the PCs try to sell some treasure to convert it into coin. The group might have found 25 suits of plate but few people can afford to buy that many suits at once.

 

[RosenMcStern]

And most adventurer groups have found themselves in possession of a dozen full armor suits, sooner or later

This is the time when good relationship with a cult shows its importance. Most major temples have underequipped guards, not to mention the fancy weaponry they must supply to Rune Lords, and simply cannot spare the cash to buy them decent armour, or perhaps it is they who cannot find a smith that has enough time to manufacture good equipment for them. All this comes to an end when clever cultists show up with good weapons and armor for all the guards, and accept payment in magic items instead of cash. Of course they must make a 10% discount to the temple to fulfil their tithing duties, but that is fair for pious adventurers.

 

[atgxtg]

I had that situation pup up in Stormbringer years ago. THe group screwed up, got into a fight with some Royal Guardsmen types, and somehow got lucky and ended up with two dozen high quality, very expensive, and instantly identifiable suits of plate.

It took them a long time to sell it. Course it didn't help that more guardsmen came after them faster than they could get rid of the old armor. They actually started to mix and match sets to discard the damaged sections.


The best solution is what Rosen said. It earns you brownie points, and comes n useful when you go up in cult status. Who know, some of those jokers might end up in your retinue.

In one campaign I ran, one PC was a knight who had made it rich off the tourney circuit. He was waring plate armor, but had acquired 30 sets of maille from jousting. His solution was to give it to his retainers and men at arms. Paid off for him when his manor got raided while he was away from home.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Well, in fact my most seasoned group, as soon as they grew strong enough to dispatch standard men at arms easily, used to roll Evaluate, and not Hide, when they saw a fully armoured enemy patrol.

We even used an old quote from "Asterix in Britannia" in these cases, but it cannot be translated into English, it works only in French or in Italian.

 

[soltakss]

Well, in fact my most seasoned group, as soon as they grew strong enough to dispatch standard men at arms easily, used to roll Evaluate, and not Hide, when they saw a fully armoured enemy patrol.

I like it!

We even used an old quote from "Asterix in Britannia" in these cases, but it cannot be translated into English, it works only in French or in Italian.

What is it in French? Some of us actually went to school ........

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear All,

Yes, I'm interested too. I have both French and English versions of 'Asterix in Britain' - and can even read French circumambulatory philosophy.

Regards