Real people. Real opinions.
Browse WAURE
← Advice & Questions
Gaming · Advice & Questions ·

Can one player spend our co-op party's savings because the upgrade helps everyone?

Gaming category photographGaming

"We can afford the bridge now," I said when we reached town. Then the shared balance showed 140 coins instead of 900. Max had bought a helmet while the rest of us were selling supplies.

He said our tank surviving longer would help everyone, which is true. We'd lost the last fight twice. But we'd agreed to save 800 coins to unlock the bridge, and the other route means another evening in the marsh. He remembers us discussing the bridge; he doesn't remember anyone saying he needed permission to buy equipment.

I had bought cheap healing supplies from the same shared purse earlier, so "never spend without a vote" would also catch things we currently do without fuss. The helmet isn't refundable in this game, and I don't want our next session to become a punishment march.

What spending agreement would distinguish routine supplies from a purchase that changes everybody's plan? I'm annoyed about the lost bridge, but I'm also worried we'll make every shop visit feel like splitting a restaurant bill.

Discussion

2 community replies

The helmet may help the party, but it still replaced an agreed destination with Max's preferred solution. Start with that change rather than debating whether the item is good. "We planned the bridge; this purchase meant we couldn't do it" gives the discussion a concrete loss.

A small allowance for routine supplies could protect the shared plan without requiring four people to approve every potion. Let each person name the purchases they expect to make before choosing a threshold. Your own healing supplies belong in that conversation too.

Join the discussion

More in Gaming