Treasures and Helping in Combat

[SirHaggus]

So would you say that the person who's turn it is in and who accepted help always gets first choice if the person helping doesn't explicitly say so? The person who chose to help me is very careful in negotiating when and exactly how he will "help" in combat. In this instance, my helper said that "first choice" was implied since he initially said he would get all the treasure - why specify choice if there is no choice to be made he argued?

I argued that it was not correct to assume that the treasure allotment would not change and that because he failed to specify and it was my combat, I got first choice. He said this was cheap.

We regularly back stab each other in combat negotiations and often will pump up a monster with lots of treasure to lure a higher player into combat only to dump the treasure and curse him into death.

How would other folks have resolved this?

[Sawmaniac]

My friends are very munchkinly. I have to be careful when playing with them.

For example, when I want a wizard to help I say: "I'll give you X treasures if you help me to kill the monster".

If there's clever opponent and odd number of treasures, I say: "I give you half the treasures (rounded to your use) and play -5 on a monster.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by SirHaggus

In this instance, my helper said that "first choice" was implied since he initially said he would get all the treasure - why specify choice if there is no choice to be made he argued?

You can't argue implication when the situation can undergo mutation. (Forgive the rhyming fascination.)

As I said before, the rules stay away from how to interpret ambiguous treasure-division agreements; that's a matter for each table to decide. (I take this back, actually: the ultimate arbiter is the owner of the game, according to the rules. So I guess we do provide a way to decide these situations: "Bob, what should we do?") I will say that, in most of the games I've played, the default assumption when picks are not specified is that the main fighter gets to choose, but that's not hard and fast and I suspect wouldn't appease your friend anyway.

[uttwich]

Originally Posted by SirHaggus

So would you say that the person who's turn it is in and who accepted help always gets first choice if the person helping doesn't explicitly say so?

Yes. It's your combat, you decide if they get to help, and you are the one who sets the final price. If they don't want it for the final price then so be it.

In my game we also have people who will try to undercut the previous help offerer: Let's say munchkin 1 will help for 2 of the 3 treasures, but munchkin 2 comes in and says that they will help for 1 of their choice. The first person then says he'll take the same deal. Now I have choices as to who I will accept help from.

The words "of my choice" are very important, and without them then the assumption is that they get whatever you decide to give them. If they argue to the contrary, then point out to them that they didn't say "of their choice", and if that doesn't work then defer to the group at large or your GM.

Originally Posted by SirHaggus

The person who chose to help me is very careful in negotiating when and exactly how he will "help" in combat. In this instance, my helper said that "first choice" was implied since he initially said he would get all the treasure - why specify choice if there is no choice to be made he argued?

Here's where your munchkinly wile shone through. You said in your initial post that you asked him to clarify that he was helping for three treasures, not all of them. He still never specified that those three were of his choice.

Originally Posted by SirHaggus

I argued that it was not correct to assume that the treasure allotment would not change and that because he failed to specify and it was my combat, I got first choice. He said this was cheap.

One man's cheap is another man's brilliant. He agreed to help for three treasures in the end. You got him to clarify that point. I don't think that he is entitled to anything else once he agreed to help. If anything, once he realized that you were beefing up the monster to create more treasures he could have decided to throw the battle by beefing it up more to the point that y'all were now losing. Otherwise, why would you be making it stronger and creating more treasure if they would all go to him?

[Arukoto]

If it was my set, I would say that the helper would get 3 cards decided by the player, and the player would keep the rest ("inclusive hoard") and gotten someone against you until payback is served :D


In a reverse situation, where the player plays against a monster that giving 3 treasures, needs and gets help, helper agreed upon 3 treasures.
An opponent plays any negative enhancer making the total treasure 2 or below (not making the monster morphing or anything like that, so it is a normal kill, with treasure and level gain)

Not that I have seen it happen yet, but would the helper get 3 treasures even if the player needs to give from his/her own items as part of the deal?

I mean a player throws away something that can help later, it would be a great way to mess with others like that

[uttwich]

I posted earlier that I got someone to help for 2 treasures (out of two), and as soon as they agreed I played Dead Broke which meant that the monster had no treasure to give. Basically just used him to gain a level rather than suffer whatever the bad stuff was on the chance that I could not run away).

Just because the agreement is 3 treasures doesn't mean that if a modifier is played to reduce the total number available to lower than what the monster originally had to give doesn't mean that they would get something in addition to trasures from the kill. (i.e. If you played a -5 that reduced the number of treasures from 3 to 2, you don't owe them a treasure later in the game or have to sacrifice something from your hand in order to fulfill your part of the deal).

When someone helps they need to be aware that the possibility exists that things may not end up as they are when they agree to help in the first place. After all, we're all munchkins performing munchkinly deeds serving our own purposes...

[thedag]

Originally Posted by uttwich

I posted earlier that I got someone to help for 2 treasures (out of two), and as soon as they agreed I played Dead Broke which meant that the monster had no treasure to give. Basically just used him to gain a level rather than suffer whatever the bad stuff was on the chance that I could not run away).

another option would be to play the card that forces the treasure to be dristributed evenly one at a time to each player no matter what agreement was made. Can't remember name of card (or set) but that is the effect.