Treasures and Helping in Combat

[SirHaggus]

So here is the situation. I entered into combat against a level 11 monster that gives three treasures and I am not beating it. I ask another player to assist me in combat and he agrees to, but specifically states that he "wants all three treasures". I clarify and ask him how many treasures he wants in exchange for helping me. He says "three". We shake on it and I play a +10 card to boost the monster to level 21, we are still beating it. No one objects and we flip over 5 treasures. The 4th treasure that flips over is hoard and we discard it and draw another three treasures for a total of seven treasures.

The person that agreed to help me argued that he should get "first choice" of the 7 treasures drawn because, He had stated "all three treasures" and at the time that he said this, there were only three treasures so why would he have specified "first choice" since it was implied.

My argument was that as soon as there were more than three treasures in play that I automatically got first choice of all but three of them because he didn't specifically negotiate for "first choice" rights and since it was my combat, I got to pick treasures first and he would get the leftovers.

We argued back and forth for about 15 minutes.

What is the ruling on this? Does the player who's combat it is get first choice if it isn't specifically negotiated?

Should the guy who helped me have said - "Even though there are only three treasures now, if you modify the combat in a way that gives you extra treasures, I want first choice of three cards from the loot"

It was my deck so at the end, we agreed that neither one of us would get "first choice" of the seven treasures and that my helper would get the first three treasures drawn and I would get the other 4.

[Andrew Hackard]

There is no officially sanctioned way to resolve this dispute. You can do what you did, or you can say that the helper gets the first three picks of the Treasures, or you can roll off for each Treasure (1-3 you, 4-6 helper) until your helper gets three or you get four, and then give the remainder to the other person.

Let this be a lesson to all parties in a fight: never assume that conditions won't change!

[uttwich]

In my group there is a very clear distinction between whether the munchkin for hire gets "X treasures of his choice" or just gets "X treasures". So long as the magic words "of my choice" are not said, it is assumed that they get whatever the main conbatant decides to give them.

And to give another example of how you can change the number of treasures after someone asks for help: I was in a fight once against something that gave 2 treasures and the munchkin who was willing to help wanted both treasures. I smiled a rather munchkinly smile, accepted his help, and then played Dead Broke. He gets no treasure, I get a level (which is all I would have gotten anyway given the agreement).

[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 SirHaggus

So here is the situation. I entered into combat against a level 11 monster that gives three treasures and I am not beating it. I ask another player to assist me in combat and he agrees to, but specifically states that he "wants all three treasures". I clarify and ask him how many treasures he wants in exchange for helping me. He says "three". We shake on it and I play a +10 card to boost the monster to level 21, we are still beating it. No one objects and we flip over 5 treasures. The 4th treasure that flips over is hoard and we discard it and draw another three treasures for a total of seven treasures.

The person that agreed to help me argued that he should get "first choice" of the 7 treasures drawn because, He had stated "all three treasures" and at the time that he said this, there were only three treasures so why would he have specified "first choice" since it was implied.

My argument was that as soon as there were more than three treasures in play that I automatically got first choice of all but three of them because he didn't specifically negotiate for "first choice" rights and since it was my combat, I got to pick treasures first and he would get the leftovers.

We argued back and forth for about 15 minutes.

What is the ruling on this? Does the player who's combat it is get first choice if it isn't specifically negotiated?

Should the guy who helped me have said - "Even though there are only three treasures now, if you modify the combat in a way that gives you extra treasures, I want first choice of three cards from the loot"

It was my deck so at the end, we agreed that neither one of us would get "first choice" of the seven treasures and that my helper would get the first three treasures drawn and I would get the other 4.

In my playing group we would never say "all three treasures". Instead we would say "all treasures". This saves the problem you had and means that if you them played the +10 the helper would get those as well as hoard. Of course in a situation like that we generally are reasonable and would give the other person some treasures that they could use or sell.


What does amaze me is that so many seem to leave it to assumption that if the helper doesn't specify their choice then it is automatically the choice of main player. Perhaps this comes from playing with a lawyer (who loves the lawyer monster card) but we are always very specific on deals. When we offer to help for no treasure but rather help in a later combat the helper specifies as long as it is not for the winning level (guess I was only going to get away with that once!) That is how specific our agreements are. So perhaps the solution is people make specific agreements.