Good points, and that is why I think everyone rolling need makes the most sense. There are way too many variables to consider, and even if the leader is weighing them - some of the other players won't be. It 's quite possible to make a fair and just call - and be hated for it.
There is a saying - "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." Only a completely random roll can be obviously fair to everyone.
Usually most people see the justice even if some people don't... ex. the guy who didn't get the drop and his posse.
If they don't see the fairness, then that's their problem.
What do you consider "fair", anyway? If loot is randomly distributed, and someone doesn't win after the 100th time, while some other guy wins 50 times, is that fair for the loser? He has bad luck, but I wouldn't call that fair. Luck never is.
(Side note: Fair_division @ Wikipedia is a cool page to click around in if you're interested in further reading on this topic, although most of it doesn't really apply to this because we are using indivisible goods.)
Fair can mean either "unbiased" or it can mean "according to the rules". If everyone agrees that each piece of loot is given to one party member at random with each member having an equal chance to win, they haven't been distributed equally but they have been distributed fairly by both definitions. If the party lays out a specific system for deciding who can get what, each piece is distributed unfairly by the first definition — not anybody could have won it, there was a bias — but fairly by the second definition. If the party leader makes his own call as to who should or should not have a chance to win each item, that is fair by neither definition. It is fair only in the mind of the person making up the rules, and even then only by the second definition.
Now, there are some times when a fair distribution isn't enough; you really have to try for a more equal distribution. I don't think someone who loses 100 6-way rolls has grounds to demand a change (odds of that are about 1 in 83 million, btw), but something like end-game raiding fits the bill. Why? A couple reasons: if you're talking about BoP/EX equipment, then there's no other way to obtain it; you can't earn money and just buy it from someone who won a lucky roll. And also because you're doing it with a relatively static group of like-minded people who all have an incentive to help each other and a strong deterrent to cheat each other. And finally because you are bound to be in competition with more people than you would be in a typical "grind-sized" pug.
The wiki page that I linked explains that indivisible goods are an obstacle to fair division but "[t]he use of money can make such problems much easier." A good DKP system provides just that: a form of currency to balance things out. It is absolutely preferred here because it means things are distributed equally. You get equipment equal to the time you put in: you don't get it before you have done enough to earn it, and you're guaranteed (well, not quite but mostly...) once you have done enough.
Interestingly enough, this can be done with pugs too. Just instead of using your own made-up currency, use the real game currency! Aion had this as an option for loot distribution. Instead of rolling, you just make a silent bid of how much you're willing to give to the party in order to have the item. In effect, you're offering to buy each other member's share of the item. Whoever bids the highest gets it, and the rest of the party splits that amount. This satisfies the requirements for a fair, "envy-free" division. The person who won the item gets it for the value they said was fair, and each other member actually gets more than what they consider fair. However, I would never suggest that S-E bother to implement this, because it was a total flop in Aion. A waste of the developers' time. In the six months I played, I never even once heard of anyone using this method. I do not think it is something that players would accept unless it was the only loot system allowed by the game. So even though FFA is not as equal as a bid system, it is sufficient that it is a fair system.
Forgot to mention one other thing regarding the "fairness" of someone who loses 100 rolls and someone else who wins 50. Randomness is an important part of many games. I can't even express how much less enjoyable a crafting system is if there is no chance of failure or critical success. Even going way back to those fun times in Valkurm Dunes in FFXI, getting that damn Magicked Skull to drop so you could get your subjob... you have to admit, it would've been a simple nuisance quest if it had just said "Kill 20 Ghouls". The randomness of having to hope for a drop made you elated when you finally found and won one. Whether you got one in a reasonable number of kills or not, just knowing that you had some tough odds to overcome made the victory sweeter.
As far as abolishing luck in favor of equalness is concerned, NBG doesn't do any differently than FFA except for biasing things a bit more towards the Needy. While a down-on-his-luck Lancer might fail on all 20 FFA rolls of the evening and get nothing for his troubles, he could even more easily fail on 12 Greed rolls (the other 8 were Needed by the rest of the party) if he is well-geared so nothing Needable dropped for him. Better punish his preparedness by making him even more likely to walk away empty-handed.
Comments
(Side note: Fair_division @ Wikipedia is a cool page to click around in if you're interested in further reading on this topic, although most of it doesn't really apply to this because we are using indivisible goods.)
Fair can mean either "unbiased" or it can mean "according to the rules". If everyone agrees that each piece of loot is given to one party member at random with each member having an equal chance to win, they haven't been distributed equally but they have been distributed fairly by both definitions. If the party lays out a specific system for deciding who can get what, each piece is distributed unfairly by the first definition — not anybody could have won it, there was a bias — but fairly by the second definition. If the party leader makes his own call as to who should or should not have a chance to win each item, that is fair by neither definition. It is fair only in the mind of the person making up the rules, and even then only by the second definition.
Now, there are some times when a fair distribution isn't enough; you really have to try for a more equal distribution. I don't think someone who loses 100 6-way rolls has grounds to demand a change (odds of that are about 1 in 83 million, btw), but something like end-game raiding fits the bill. Why? A couple reasons: if you're talking about BoP/EX equipment, then there's no other way to obtain it; you can't earn money and just buy it from someone who won a lucky roll. And also because you're doing it with a relatively static group of like-minded people who all have an incentive to help each other and a strong deterrent to cheat each other. And finally because you are bound to be in competition with more people than you would be in a typical "grind-sized" pug.
The wiki page that I linked explains that indivisible goods are an obstacle to fair division but "[t]he use of money can make such problems much easier." A good DKP system provides just that: a form of currency to balance things out. It is absolutely preferred here because it means things are distributed equally. You get equipment equal to the time you put in: you don't get it before you have done enough to earn it, and you're guaranteed (well, not quite but mostly...) once you have done enough.
Interestingly enough, this can be done with pugs too. Just instead of using your own made-up currency, use the real game currency! Aion had this as an option for loot distribution. Instead of rolling, you just make a silent bid of how much you're willing to give to the party in order to have the item. In effect, you're offering to buy each other member's share of the item. Whoever bids the highest gets it, and the rest of the party splits that amount. This satisfies the requirements for a fair, "envy-free" division. The person who won the item gets it for the value they said was fair, and each other member actually gets more than what they consider fair. However, I would never suggest that S-E bother to implement this, because it was a total flop in Aion. A waste of the developers' time. In the six months I played, I never even once heard of anyone using this method. I do not think it is something that players would accept unless it was the only loot system allowed by the game. So even though FFA is not as equal as a bid system, it is sufficient that it is a fair system.
Forgot to mention one other thing regarding the "fairness" of someone who loses 100 rolls and someone else who wins 50. Randomness is an important part of many games. I can't even express how much less enjoyable a crafting system is if there is no chance of failure or critical success. Even going way back to those fun times in Valkurm Dunes in FFXI, getting that damn Magicked Skull to drop so you could get your subjob... you have to admit, it would've been a simple nuisance quest if it had just said "Kill 20 Ghouls". The randomness of having to hope for a drop made you elated when you finally found and won one. Whether you got one in a reasonable number of kills or not, just knowing that you had some tough odds to overcome made the victory sweeter.
As far as abolishing luck in favor of equalness is concerned, NBG doesn't do any differently than FFA except for biasing things a bit more towards the Needy. While a down-on-his-luck Lancer might fail on all 20 FFA rolls of the evening and get nothing for his troubles, he could even more easily fail on 12 Greed rolls (the other 8 were Needed by the rest of the party) if he is well-geared so nothing Needable dropped for him. Better punish his preparedness by making him even more likely to walk away empty-handed.