DM Help PCs stealing/hiding loot from each other [Archive]

Red Fel

2014-06-17, 09:04 PM

How do you handle it when one of your PCs is hiding loot they find from other PCs to get a better cut of the treasure?

This sounds to me like an out-of-character problem resulting in in-character issues, and should therefore be addressed out-of-character.

The problem: The player believes it is okay for his character to mess the party over like that.

The symptom: The character messes the party over.

The solution: Sit down, out of character, and ask the player why he does it. Remind him that "it's what my character would do" is never an excuse to be a jerk. Advise him that there are ways to act out a "contrarian" alignment without actively messing with the other PCs. Caution him that "Chaotic Backstabbing" is a terminal alignment.

Note that if none of the players are bothered by this PC's actions, it's kind of a non-issue. My advice assumes that at least one of the players is bothered. If the DM is bothered... Well, it's mostly irrelevant unless the DM has expressly forbidden such conduct.

Angelalex242

2014-06-17, 09:16 PM

Doug Lampert

2014-06-17, 09:31 PM

How do you handle it when one of your PCs is hiding loot they find from other PCs to get a better cut of the treasure?
I gather you don't have an explicit agreement that characters all cooperate all the time. Assuming I'm correct about this:

If the character is Good I inform the player that he needs to replace that with Neutral on his character sheet. If the pattern of betrayal of trust is particularly significant or there's other evidence I tell him to put Evil on the character sheet. (Note: Murder-hobo types are pretty well always Evil, I've never had a character steal from the party that wasn't fairly obviously evil based on behavior.)

If other characters figure out, in game, what he's doing, then the other players can have their characters kill him and loot the body. The replacement is 1 level lower and has no starting gear to speak of as he was just robbed blind by his former adventuring party and needs to convince the party to accept a random stranger with no gear as a party member.

Campaign before last was an evil party and had something like 5 cases where someone stole from the party, in all cases all the PLAYERS knew what was happening, and ignored it because their characters didn't have a clue. I don't believe in passing notes about that sort of thing, I've got better things to do with my time as GM and I don't particularly want my players using out of character information, most players can figure out how to not play out of character info.

In my limited experience with theft from the party causing a problem, the problem results not from the theft, but from the player of the thief assuming that party cooperation is required and PvP disallowed and thus that he's immune from the logical consequences of his actions (how stealing from others in the party and required cooperation go together escapes me). If you think the thief's player has missed this point, point it out to him, he's removed himself from any implicit contract that players treat each other's characters as "special" and placed himself in the same bin as random orc bandits, except with fewer friends and more cash....

Alex12

2014-06-17, 09:40 PM

If they're Evil or otherwise distrust/dislike/want to hinder or kill each other (but maybe want to do it in a subtle way) then it's completely in-character and reasonable. That sort of behavior is, honestly, kind of expected.
If not, talk to them OOC. Remind them that the character knows that these are your teammates, your friends, your party. You cover for them, they cover for you. You save their lives, they save yours. How would they feel if the party healer lied and told them that he was out of healing spells for the day? Or the party arcanist said he didn't have any more buff spells?

Red Fel

2014-06-17, 09:50 PM

If they're Evil or otherwise distrust/dislike/want to hinder or kill each other (but maybe want to do it in a subtle way) then it's completely in-character and reasonable. That sort of behavior is, honestly, kind of expected.

The problem is that Evil doesn't mean they have to distrust/dislike/want to hinder or kill each other, nor does mutual distrust or dislike mandate conduct tantamount to PvP. Unless the players explicitly want to be in a campaign where backstabbing is the norm, there's no excuse for that kind of behavior, alignment be damned. (Unintended pun, go me.) It shouldn't be "expected."

It's very much an either/or situation. Either all of the players are explicitly okay with this kind of conduct, or this kind of conduct should be expected to result in harsh consequences, in- or out-of-character. Even one player not being okay with it should be sufficient to take it off of the table; when a single player can ruin the fun of the other players, a line needs to be drawn.

I've been in Evil campaigns where the party works together well, despite disliking each other or coming from different backgrounds. It's even possible to be a bit cruel to one another without openly antagonizing other PCs. I was in one Evil campaign where my character's misconduct caught up with him in the form of a rather nasty punishment; the rest of the party didn't help him out, but didn't make it worse, either. They didn't have to be cruel, but they didn't have to be nice. It's a fine line, but it works.

Vortenger

2014-06-17, 10:05 PM

This happened in an Age of Worms campaign I ran. I warned the player of the likely consequences of being caught by the party. When that failed, I ensured the party caught him. The ensuing in and out of character arguments made it clear that nothing like that would ever happen again. The character himself was stripped of all but clothing, hogtied, and left at a regular roadside campsite. A new rogue was contracted to the group soon after.

Alex12

2014-06-17, 10:08 PM

The problem is that Evil doesn't mean they have to distrust/dislike/want to hinder or kill each other, nor does mutual distrust or dislike mandate conduct tantamount to PvP. Unless the players explicitly want to be in a campaign where backstabbing is the norm, there's no excuse for that kind of behavior, alignment be damned. (Unintended pun, go me.) It shouldn't be "expected."

It's very much an either/or situation. Either all of the players are explicitly okay with this kind of conduct, or this kind of conduct should be expected to result in harsh consequences, in- or out-of-character. Even one player not being okay with it should be sufficient to take it off of the table; when a single player can ruin the fun of the other players, a line needs to be drawn.

I've been in Evil campaigns where the party works together well, despite disliking each other or coming from different backgrounds. It's even possible to be a bit cruel to one another without openly antagonizing other PCs. I was in one Evil campaign where my character's misconduct caught up with him in the form of a rather nasty punishment; the rest of the party didn't help him out, but didn't make it worse, either. They didn't have to be cruel, but they didn't have to be nice. It's a fine line, but it works.

Yeah, no, you're right. I'm just letting the experiences of the last evil campaign I was in color my thinking. We were all a bunch of varying flavors of psychopath, and if the benefit from killing a party member outweighed leaving them alive, well, down they went. We were all kind of expecting PvP to occur, to the point that I had already planned out my contingencies for when it happened. Not if. When. Balance was maintained largely by the fact that three of us were close enough in power that the outcome of an eruption of hostilities was too close to predict, and we wanted to live (or in my case, stay undead) more than we wanted to kill the rest of them. But you're right. It's entirely possible to have an evil campaign where the PCs trust each other not to backstab and steal from each other.

XmonkTad

2014-06-17, 10:13 PM

Stealing from the party is not acceptable when it messes with the party, but as the DM, you can make sure it doesn't. For example, let's say that a party rogue keeps stealing from the party, which consists of a Wizard, a cleric, and a fighter.

1) Make sure the rest of the party doesn't fall too far behind the curve on WBL. Cleric and wizard are T1, so less than WBL won't cripple them, and might even help prevent overshadowing. Help the fighter out with un-steal-able rewards (grafts, tomes) and rewards the rogue has no use for (tower shields).
2) Give spells that only work on willing targets cast by the rest of the party a failure chance when used on the rogue. IC, the reason for this is because his subconscious doesn't trust his party anymore (dimension door pretty much needs to fail once before he cries uncle).
3) Make sure the rogue's ill-gotten gains don't give him too much advantage. Suddenly, all the guards demand bribes from him, even to just do their job. Pickpockets hear his pockets jingle louder than everyone else's.

You don't have to rip up his character sheet, but let him read this thread and he'll get the idea that intra-party thievery is violently frowned upon.

torrasque666

2014-06-17, 10:16 PM

Angelalex242

2014-06-17, 10:21 PM

Betrayal annoys me as a person.

There's a reason Dante's Inferno considers it the worst sin possible, even beyond rape and torture and murder.

Alex12

2014-06-17, 10:27 PM

dextercorvia

2014-06-17, 10:30 PM

Personally, I just figure if you make sure the thieving PCs know that PvP is not, in fact, off, and you not only won't intervene if the rest of the party finds out that you've been stealing and decides to commit violence on your character, but will actually give them XP as appropriate for an encounter of your CR if such a situation occurs. That should stop it nicely.

See, my problem with this is that I don't want PvP. This is not an evil psychopath campaign. I'm fine with evil characters that can rationalize working with others. But, in my experience stealing always leads to a party split, or PvP. Neither are desirable for me. I don't need everyone to get along, but I do like a party that can work to achieve a goal despite their differences.

Shieldbunny

2014-06-17, 10:32 PM

Hiding loot from the part is perfectly fine. So is savagely rending said thief into multiple pieces. At least with my normal group. Of course, we usually allow high charisma characters to influence other PCs a well.

Adverb

2014-06-17, 10:40 PM

See, my problem with this is that I don't want PvP. This is not an evil psychopath campaign. I'm fine with evil characters that can rationalize working with others. But, in my experience stealing always leads to a party split, or PvP. Neither are desirable for me. I don't need everyone to get along, but I do like a party that can work to achieve a goal despite their differences.

If you don't want a party split, and your PCs are in the dark... you don't have many options.

You could stop passing notes, and make all actions OOC-public? Or you could just tell the player that working against the other PCs without their OOC knowledge isn't allowed in your game.

Elkad

2014-06-17, 10:55 PM

Hiding loot, getting "first pick" of the loot (because nobody else even saw it), mis-identifying magic items as junk, planting loot on the paladin (or the guy of questionable alignment) for others to find and think he stole it, disguising yourself when you get back to town and pickpocketing your friends, snatching up every looted magic ring/sword and chanting "I wish I was stronger" five times fast. All fair game.

As is PvP. If the party wants to self-destruct, I'm not going to hold them back. Doesn't matter if it's open or sneaky. If the wizard keeps hitting the invisible rogue with his fireballs "I thought you were on the other side of the room, honest", it's on the party to work out the problem. If the fighter doesn't trip the monster heading for the wizard, oh well. Cleric casts one more flamestrike instead of trying to heal the -9 unconscious guy? Thief gets tired of the fireballs and flat-out backstabs the wizard.

I've played in plenty of parties like that, and DMed enough of them as well.

How about 2 party Paladins fighting to the death over the old classic question of "do you kill the orc babies before they grow up to be orcs?" Both sides had well-crafted arguments (including rationale about why each deity would choose each side) about what the right answer was. Neither backed down, it came to blows, and went until one of them died. Dead paladin rolled a new character and the players remained friends, leaving a trail of dead baby monsters behind them.

No conflict between PCs is the exception, not the rule. It doesn't come to blows often, but a party is never harmonious, even if the players are.

Slipperychicken

2014-06-17, 11:03 PM

I consider it to be PvP, and I think it should be treated as such.

Elkad

2014-06-17, 11:29 PM

So most of you just expect to ban PvP altogether?

Slipperychicken

2014-06-17, 11:38 PM

So most of you just expect to ban PvP altogether?

I agree with this. When I play TTRPGs, I want to work together with my friends. I'd rather save PvP for games which require less investment.

Seffbasilisk

2014-06-18, 12:13 AM

It's PvP. It has no place a Heroes quest. For misfit adventurers however, it certainly fits the bill, just so long as everyone is aware of what type of game they're playing. Passing notes to the DM sets this atmosphere well. Eventually you're crafting Epic spells to improve Wish and revising history so your opponents fail saving throws against save or die effects.

When DMing, if the players want PvP, and they're all down for it? Go for it. They understand that they might leave the precious quest unfinished, that all the time and energy they invest are liable to the same (or worse) fates that they bestow upon others, and that CR is based on the entire party...

Go nuts.

Ratatoskir

2014-06-18, 12:14 AM

That sounds like a great way to lose a character, even without pvp. Stealing betrays a trust that most reasonable people would require before relying on someone to stay alive. Even the most Good aligned parties would at least throw someone out of the party that was being detrimental if it was discovered. Which means that player gets to roll up a new character, probably a level lower. Natural consequences.

I actually had a character in my party that was taking disproportionate levels of wealth, as well as endangering the party with selfish actions (ring that randomly puts character into a frenzy, plus a dagger with a SoD effect? Yaay). No other character had a problem with any of this though, so my character was the one that left. Or would have, if he hadn't died. Now cue in an evil jerk to replace him, since that's what way the party is leaning.

TheMonocleRogue

2014-06-18, 12:23 AM

To avoid situations where one party member is carrying all the loot I use the Dragon's Crown method of loot distribution: create an NPC that is indebted to the party who appraises and carries all the loot in a handy haversack. I also don't bother forcing the PCs to search for treasure unless it's guarded by hundreds of traps or well hidden. If they've just defeated a boss I would rather make a loot table and hand it to them than have them spend a good hour playing "finders keepers" on all the treasure in the dungeon.

It's best to restrict player secrecy when it involves the other PCs hard work in the campaign, lest there be cheating or douchebaggery. I hate loot hoarders with gusto because they kill campaign pacing and lower the overall fun of the group. Giving everyone in the group a way of keeping track of their treasure/trinkets without hiding it from them nips this problem in the bud.

I now punish PCs for stealing/hiding loot by giving them a short leash. Give them too much slack and the players will strangle them with it the first chance they get.

jiriku

2014-06-18, 01:16 AM

There are two environments where I've had this happen. One is a casual game where people aren't overly concerned about wealth. Characters have widely varying resources and we play fast and loose with some of the rules. A little in-character stealing is generally regarded as "rogues will be rogues" and overlooked with a wink and a nod. Note: this works because everyone at the table is cool with it and has the same expectations.

The second group is on that meets regularly and consists of serious hobbyists. In this one, it was a serious problem. I implemented a rule of RP-PVP: PVP can only occur between two players with the consent of both, and will not be resolved with dice rolls. Instead, both players must agree on the outcome. If no agreement exists, the PVP action cannot occur. Theft is considered PVP, even if the loot isn't personally in the victim's wallet at the time.

There's a major DM flag for you to grab onto here, however. Your thief PC wants to steal stuff and feel clever about it! By all means, find a way to make that happen. When players send signals about the type of interaction they enjoy and the type of gaming they want to do, a great DM recognizes it as a golden opportunity and takes advantage. For example, you could provide the player with a chance to steal things that aren't usable as currency, like the deed to a piece of property that the party can use as a base, or some secret information about an NPC that the player could use to exert blackmail later. Maybe the player comes across a massive and widely known gem the size of an ostrich egg. It's so readily identifiable and fabulously expensive that the player would never be able to sell it, but he could delight in having stolen it and kept it for himself, or perhaps in a later game such a gem will be needed to power some plot-level spell to save the world and he can be the hero by revealing that he has the answer to everyone's prayers. Apply your creativity and I'm sure you'll come up with ways the player can satisfy his burglar's urges without doing so at the expense of the other party members.

Sayt

2014-06-18, 01:42 AM

As an idea: don't give treasure in the former of currency, give it on terms of art works or trade goods, and don't be afraid to use the phrase "bags of holding can carry an exraordinary amount, but their mouths only stretch so much".

So if a character wants to put the crate of bullion in their bag of holding, they have to do it brick by brick. If they want to put the priceless portrait odd an ancient King in their bag, they need to cut it out of its frame and roll it up, and they're gonna want to get a carry to carry the larger than life marble statute of That One Mythological Hero.

Which they probably can't do without the party noticing.

Pan151

2014-06-18, 02:13 AM

...I, personally, would not allow such backstabbing.

"You're going to steal from the party?"
"Yeah!"
"You're...seriously going to backstab your friends!"
"Absolutely!"
"And you think this is a good idea?"
"Totally! It's roleplaying! What my character would do!"
"Let me see your character sheet..."
"Well, okay..."

*tears the character sheet up before the player's eyes* A bolt of lightning strikes your character dead. Don't EVER do that again, capeesh? Because next time, tearing up your character sheet will be followed by my escorting you off the premises of my property. Forcefully. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?!

Well, this takes the cake as the worst piece of DMing I've ever seen, and there's no shortage of bad DMing in these boards...

When you have an in-character problem, you solve it in-character. You do not make it into an out-of-character deal. If a player character does something that you do not like, you give a couple OOC warnings, then proceed to solve it however you see fit in-character. Have some evidence of the theft conveniently appear later on, have some guard appear out of a corner, hell, fudge a couple spot checks if necessary, but don't give your player the "because I am the almighty overlord and I said so" treatment, because then he's perfectly entitled to grab your DMG, throw it in your face and walk off the premises of your property himself.

WindStruck

2014-06-18, 02:14 AM

Heya, I've kind of stalked you a bit but...

I think you've been handling it pretty well. The other players also seem to be RPing nicely and reasonably estimating what their characters would be doing.

But this one guy you are having trouble with... he's gonna be a problem. All you are asking for is slight of hand vs spot rolls, and he flies off the hinges and won't stop arguing. Plus his English isn't great. You really don't want this kind of guy in your game.

You've already expressed your concerns about the consequences of what might happen and he's apparently willing to deal with them... So I guess when or if something bad happens to him as a result, you can tell him goodbye, good game, and find someone else to replace him.

Doug Lampert

2014-06-18, 08:15 AM

If you don't want a party split, and your PCs are in the dark... you don't have many options.

You could stop passing notes, and make all actions OOC-public? Or you could just tell the player that working against the other PCs without their OOC knowledge isn't allowed in your game.

Yep, theft from the party has never, in over 37 years of GMing, caused a problem for me as a GM or for a campaign I'm running (and I've made plenty of bad mistakes as a GM, just not the ones that lead to theft causing a problem).

I don't pass notes, doing so takes altogether too much time out when I'm trying to run for 6 or so and my handwriting is illegible anyway (dyslexia strikes again). You pass me a note about your clever theft plans, and I'll give my reply out loud, possibly with explanation for the other players, that keeps them engaged in the game and I simply don't have time with 6 or more players around a table to bother finding something to hide paper behind and write notes (and I'm not about to start using a GM screen at this point).

Theft within the party doesn't cause problems for me or my group; and yet I've seen it cause problems in other games, and the GMs in those games passed notes. I think there's a connection.

Your character stealing from my character is in game, that's fine. I'm roleplaying a different character in a different world with different morals. You yourself betraying me in this world is not OK. Resolving PC actions publicly makes it clear that the first option is what's happening, and also makes it clear that actions in responses by other characters are fine and on the table.

They get to role-play their character's too. And if they catch you, good party or evil, it makes no difference, what does a "good" party do to a treacherous and dangerous bandit that they know can't be trusted and is more dangerous than many dragons? Seriously? They kill him and take his stuff.

I have seen it cause problems in other people's campaigns, and those problems ALWAYS comes down to the thief's player passing notes and thinking he's untouchable or that the penalty for being caught won't be bad. But there is no glowing rune of PCness on your forehead that forces the world to conform to you or forces the other characters to treat you as special.

Trasilor

2014-06-18, 10:43 AM

As a DM, you control everything in the world. Except the actions of PCs. Don't take this away from them.

If you are not having fun with PVP - for whatever reason - talk to your players. This is an OOC problem - you are not having fun. I would hope, if a player was not having fun, they would come talk to me instead of sabotaging the game. Explain you don't like PVP because it takes away from the story - bogs the game down - can cause hurt feelings out of game. As a DM you will be putting them up against lots of thing that will cause them harm - having PCs hurt each other is just too much for you.

If you are indifferent to PVP, talk to the players about their expectations regarding PVP. Do they think PVP is appropriate? Are they playing with the assumption that PVP is not allowed...etc. The point is, you should get a consensus as to the game from all the players. If they don't want it, then it should resolve itself. However, if another player insists on it ("because that's what my character would do") - explain that it is not appropriate for this game and they should create a different character or develop a different motivation for their current character. If they are looking to use that 'slight of hand' (or other rogue-ish) skill - allow them opportunities to do so.

If you and your players are indifferent to PVP then let if flow naturally. When X player goes to buy an item and finds he is missing 100 gp, they will be angry but more cautious. In the future, they will take extra precaution securing their wealth. Also, when the rogue comes back from shopping with lots of brand new items worth a small fortune, other players will begin to question them. Finally, should a PC actually spot the rogue stealing - heads will most likely roll. But's that's OK b/c players already agreed it might happen.

You can mitigate some of this - cash or cash equivalents are easily stolen (coins and gems). Art is bulky so easily seen, loot from a fallen enemy is very difficult to hide (everybody saw the BBEG using a powerful staff - now where is it?) But ultimately, you are not there to control their character.

Segev

2014-06-18, 11:04 AM

First off: do the other players know about this?

If yes, then discuss it OOC and see how they feel. IF they're not okay with it OOC, then you need to work together as a group to find a way to satisfy everybody's desires as best you can. Whether that means the thief learns not to steal from the party, the party gets loot handed out differently, or some other solution is up to you guys, but you need to make sure everybody is, OOC, okay with whatever it is that's going to go on.

If no, then you need to determine if they WOULD care. It may be that you need to let them know, OOC, or at least ask in general what they think the OOC policy should be.

What you want to avoid is having this come out later and make people angry OOC.

If it's not a problem OOC - if nobody would mind, OOC, and would just react IC as is appropriate to the characters, but be fine with the tale about it as friends out of character - then it's not a problem that needs handling.

If it is or could become a problem OOC, you need to talk to the players about how they want to handle it, and come up with an arrangement as a group.

jedipotter

2014-06-18, 12:23 PM

...I, personally, would not allow such backstabbing.

"You're going to steal from the party?"
"Yeah!"
"You're...seriously going to backstab your friends!"
"Absolutely!"
"And you think this is a good idea?"
"Totally! It's roleplaying! What my character would do!"
"Let me see your character sheet..."
"Well, okay..."

*tears the character sheet up before the player's eyes* A bolt of lightning strikes your character dead. Don't EVER do that again, capeesh? Because next time, tearing up your character sheet will be followed by my escorting you off the premises of my property. Forcefully. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?!

That is just too funny!

I'd never do that though, at least not for just hiding loot. This is something I don't care about, if players want to do this, I let them. Though I'll clamp down quick on the OOC cheaters. The ones where the player knows that another character hid some loot and ''randomly'' says ''oh, lets check that characters backpack'' or ''I randomly go over to the spot where he buried the treasure and dig it up''.

kalasulmar

2014-06-18, 12:49 PM

A little bit of appraisal shenanigans or "nobody saw me pick this up so it doesn't exist" is okay. A rogue is sneaky by nature and the classic archetype is greedy as well. As long as he isn't hurting the party and it is not just so the player gets the satisfaction of screwing people over because he can, you should allow it. I draw the line at outright theft from someone's person, (picking pockets) or trying to get an item that obviously suits another character better. A rogue doesn't need a Ring of Wizardry or a Holy Avenger. That Rhino Hide is cool, but shouldn't the Goliath Barbarian get that? Stuff like that. I try to balance treasure, but sometimes stuff fits one guy better, and our table uses the motto "if it makes one member stronger, then it makes the party stronger."

dextercorvia

2014-06-18, 02:00 PM

Doug Lampert

2014-06-18, 03:11 PM

I don't want to get into specifics of the event that precipitated my question. That's why I phrased it as generally as possible. It seems like DMs that are okay with PCs stealing or hoarding loot are okay with PvP if that is what it comes to. That was how my group was growing up. If you missed a session, it was likely that they explained it by ganking you and stealing your stuff. It caused a lot of hard feelings, and we wasted a lot of playtime sorting out IC and OOC grudges. So, I guess, like one poster said, I feel like it gets in the way of the story. (I don't mean choo choo, but just accomplishing any goal as a group).

The two really do go together. If stealing from the party is OK then retaliation for stealing from the party must also be OK, because the story doesn't make any sense if that's not the case. Actions have consequences.

My last campaign where stealing from the party happened it didn't cause any PvP, but that's mostly BECAUSE everyone knew PvP was on the table if it got objectionable.

facelessminion

2014-06-18, 04:00 PM

How do you handle it when one of your PCs is hiding loot they find from other PCs to get a better cut of the treasure?

The simplest answer is also the best answer, here:

Don't let it happen, period.

D&D is an inherently cooperative game, and having someone screwing over the rest of the party will cause even more OOC problems than it will IC problems. There's really no excuse for screwing a party over that way, even (or especially) when a group is an all-evil party. When an all evil party gets together, they end up needing to have an explicit level of coordination, whether they like one another or not, they all recognize 'these are a group of extremely powerful people that will gank me if I piss them off'. Trying to be selfish with a group of murder-hobos is more or less treading into NPC-stupid-level evil.

So the simplest answer is to tell the person, OOCly, that it is not acceptable. If they try to give an IC excuse, point out that there is no IC reason for them to not end up in jail, or in a ditch, if they are screwing things over with the rest of the party.

Quick edit: If the party has, pre campaign, accepted the idea of intra-party PVP, this becomes acceptable... But still leaves the person laying in a ditch at the end of the day.

firebrandtoluc

2014-06-18, 04:49 PM

It's not hard to DM around it. In character, the PC is stealing. Out of character, the group gets a small amount of off the chart fluff gold that gets stolen. Tell the player that the stolen fluff money has to be wasted on fluff. Because it's fluff. Booze and hookers. Never useful stuff.

If this isn't enough for the player, then you have a problem.

nedz

2014-06-18, 06:52 PM

I'd never do that though, at least not for just hiding loot. This is something I don't care about, if players want to do this, I let them. Though I'll clamp down quick on the OOC cheaters. The ones where the player knows that another character hid some loot and ''randomly'' says ''oh, lets check that characters backpack'' or ''I randomly go over to the spot where he buried the treasure and dig it up''.

This pretty much sums up my view: it's not an issue for the DM. That said it doesn't often happen, only as a result of IC drama — which is good roleplay as long as it's not too disruptive.

Pex

2014-06-18, 10:03 PM

Well, this takes the cake as the worst piece of DMing I've ever seen, and there's no shortage of bad DMing in these boards...

When you have an in-character problem, you solve it in-character. You do not make it into an out-of-character deal. If a player character does something that you do not like, you give a couple OOC warnings, then proceed to solve it however you see fit in-character. Have some evidence of the theft conveniently appear later on, have some guard appear out of a corner, hell, fudge a couple spot checks if necessary, but don't give your player the "because I am the almighty overlord and I said so" treatment, because then he's perfectly entitled to grab your DMG, throw it in your face and walk off the premises of your property himself.

Actually, it was the best advice. It is not an in character problem. It is an out of character problem. The player is being a piece of feces. It should be handled out of character. The DM could be nice about it and just tell the player to knock it off. Player complies and everything is fine. If player does not comply, the player needs to physically roleplay opening the next door he finds and walk through using the door that leads to outside the play area. It mysteriously locks and he can never open it or go through the door again. If the player volunteers to do so, so much the better. The price of having the DMG thrown at you is a bargain.

jjcrpntr

2014-06-18, 10:16 PM

Curmudgeon

2014-06-18, 10:34 PM

How do you handle it when one of your PCs is hiding loot they find from other PCs to get a better cut of the treasure?
I don't, except for when the action shifts the PC's alignment and the RAW stipulates adjustments. (Your alignment is what you play, not what you write on a character sheet.) I don't like heavy-handed DMs when I play, and I try not to intrude unnecessarily into PC actions when I DM.

Personally, I think stealing from the party is dangerously short-sighted; these people are who you rely on for help when you get into trouble, so actions which would alienate them are ill-advised. However, if the party is split up, there's nothing in the game rules which requires sharing what is found individually, and individual risk is reasonably paired with individual reward.

Angelalex242

2014-06-19, 12:06 AM

Pan151

2014-06-19, 12:10 AM

Actually, it was the best advice. It is not an in character problem. It is an out of character problem. The player is being a piece of feces. It should be handled out of character. The DM could be nice about it and just tell the player to knock it off. Player complies and everything is fine. If player does not comply, the player needs to physically roleplay opening the next door he finds and walk through using the door that leads to outside the play area. It mysteriously locks and he can never open it or go through the door again. If the player volunteers to do so, so much the better. The price of having the DMG thrown at you is a bargain.

No. The problem is the character. The character is the one that's a cleptomaniac and a liability, not the player - the player is merely playing the character as their personality dictates. If the other characters are too naive to understand that they need to keep an eye on the guy who happens to be a professional thief, then they should expect to be robbed blind. If they have a problem with cleptomaniac characters, then they should probably not have accepted one in their party in the first place.

Seriously, why would you expect otherwise? Would you also expect the theiving character to be honest with you if it was an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Would you expect the theiving character to be honest towards an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Then why would you expect a PC to behave differently towards other PCs? He doesn't have any special attachment to the other PCs, they're not his friends, they're not his superiors, they're not his family - they just happen to be temporary associates for whatever reason.

PCs are not special. Just because 2 characters are PCs does not mean that they have to interact differently than 2 NPCs or an NPC and a PC. If one of the two is a thief, then expect him to steal anything that he can get away with, be it from an NPC or from a PC. If one of the two is a murderous psychopath, he might attack anyone, be it a PC or an NPC. Expecting PvP to be magically nonexitant and, even worse, enforcing it with pure DM fiat serves only to break immersion and is a sign of an absolutely terrible DM. If you're not ok with PvP, the way you deal with it is not by Rule 0 - it's by not just letting anyone and their mother enter the party. If you're not ok with thievery, then why in the nine hells did you let the chaotic neutral halfling rogue with the maxed out sleight of hand be a part of your group in the first place? What part of him exactly made you doubt he'd rob you blind if given half a chance?

torrasque666

2014-06-19, 12:40 AM

Thus do I give a new commandment:

Thou shalt not steal from or otherwise screw over thy party members. In doing so, thou renounceth thy PC Halo and Plot Armor.

The rogue who steals from the party and says 'I'm a rogue, I steal stuff!" The cleric's reply. "I'm a cleric, I cast hold person. Make a will save." "You failed? I coup de gras you as many times as it takes to make you -10 dead. Then I take your stuff, divide it evenly among the party, we sell it to buy ourselves better stuff."

And guess who sounds like more of a **** there? The cleric. Except maybe an NE cleric. But seriously, learn to separate your hatred for betrayal from the game dude. Its a game. You take "He minorly inconveniences that party" and respond with "Kill the bitch, make him roll a new character." Thats just bad DMing there bro.

No. The problem is the character. The character is the one that's a cleptomaniac and a liability, not the player - the player is merely playing the character as their personality dictates. If the other characters are too naive to understand that they need to keep an eye on the guy who happens to be a professional thief, then they should expect to be robbed blind. If they have a problem with cleptomaniac characters, then they should probably not have accepted one in their party in the first place.

Seriously, why would you expect otherwise? Would you also expect the theiving character to be honest with you if it was an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Would you expect the theiving character to be honest towards an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Then why would you expect a PC to behave differently towards other PCs? He doesn't have any special attachment to the other PCs, they're not his friends, they're not his superiors, they're not his family - they just happen to be temporary associates for whatever reason.

PCs are not special. Just because 2 characters are PCs does not mean that they have to interact differently than 2 NPCs or an NPC and a PC. If one of the two is a thief, then expect him to steal anything that he can get away with, be it from an NPC or from a PC. If one of the two is a murderous psychopath, he might attack anyone, be it a PC or an NPC. Expecting PvP to be magically nonexitant and, even worse, enforcing it with pure DM fiat serves only to break immersion and is a sign of an absolutely terrible DM. If you're not ok with PvP, the way you deal with it is not by Rule 0 - it's by not just letting anyone and their mother enter the party. If you're not ok with thievery, then why in the nine hells did you let the chaotic neutral halfling rogue with the maxed out sleight of hand be a part of your group in the first place? What part of him exactly made you doubt he'd rob you blind if given half a chance?

You. I like you. You understand that PC's are not special snowflakes and that expectations of such are bad.

Knaight

2014-06-19, 12:48 AM

The first question is whether or not the other players know. If they know, and they're fine with it, continue. There is no problem. If they don't know, inform them. If they aren't fine with it, tell the offending player to knock it off and find a different way to play their character. This seems pretty straightforward.

I don't want to get into specifics of the event that precipitated my question. That's why I phrased it as generally as possible. It seems like DMs that are okay with PCs stealing or hoarding loot are okay with PvP if that is what it comes to. That was how my group was growing up. If you missed a session, it was likely that they explained it by ganking you and stealing your stuff. It caused a lot of hard feelings, and we wasted a lot of playtime sorting out IC and OOC grudges. So, I guess, like one poster said, I feel like it gets in the way of the story. (I don't mean choo choo, but just accomplishing any goal as a group).
I am generally fine with both of these. That said, the way you describe it looks like a nonfunctional group. PCs stealing or hoarding loot is one thing, as is conflict between characters. It's not worth anything if it isn't meaningful though, and having your character killed and stuff stolen looks more like pointless shenanigans than anything meaningful.

To use an example. I was recently playing a campaign that worked out as a bit of an anti-hero campaign. Everyone made their characters individually, everyone ended up with a bit of an anti-hero, to put it lightly. So we end up with a bloodthirsty warrior seriously lacking in scruples, an extremist cleric of a nature god seriously lacking in mercy*, and a suave archer who wouldn't be out of place with a mafia protection racket. They undertake a mission for 1000 silver (using the silver standard, so basically 1000 gold), some of it ends up spent, and there was a scene at the end where the archer and warrior split the money between the two of them, because it had been the cleric who did all the arrangement for the mission and they were able to spin things like they hadn't understood that the 1000 was before expenses, and they ended up short of their 333. This included the archer basically using the warrior as part of a veiled threat, and the cleric backing down.

It was a fun scene, and I have absolutely no problem being shorted the cash. Honestly, I find it hilarious, and would consider it a perfectly functional bit of humor throughout the campaign if it just kept happening. Had we been playing a game where the religious extremist wasn't the moral center of the party despite being cold and merciless, I'd have had much more of a problem with it. As is, it was the culmination of a lot of role playing during the session, the scene felt great narratively, and we all had a lot of fun, including me.

I assure you, "we killed your character and stole his stuff, tee hee" being related to me at the beginning of a session after I missed one? That wouldn't go over so well.

*My character

jiriku

2014-06-19, 01:41 AM

Well, this takes the cake as the worst piece of DMing I've ever seen, and there's no shortage of bad DMing in these boards...

When you have an in-character problem, you solve it in-character. You do not make it into an out-of-character deal. If a player character does something that you do not like, you give a couple OOC warnings, then proceed to solve it however you see fit in-character. Have some evidence of the theft conveniently appear later on, have some guard appear out of a corner, hell, fudge a couple spot checks if necessary, but don't give your player the "because I am the almighty overlord and I said so" treatment, because then he's perfectly entitled to grab your DMG, throw it in your face and walk off the premises of your property himself.

This is dangerous advice, and represents the opposite of what a good DM should do.

It is important to remember several things when running a game of D&D:
You have both the obligation to treat your players with respect and the right to expect respect from them in turn.
Your role as DM imposes responsibilities on you, but also grants you considerable authority. You don't need to apologize for that.
However, it is not your place, ever, to punish people for their behavior.
Most especially, manipulating the rules and cheating in order to punish a player and get your way is immature and disrespectful. Always avoid that.
Simply communicate your expectations. Anyone who is not comfortable with your rules should not be in your group. Politely thank them for attending and show them the door.

Really, this is an easy rule: don't be an ass, and don't tolerate anyone who's an ass to you or your friends.

Adverb

2014-06-19, 01:58 AM

PCs are not special

I think you and I have fundamentally differing opinions about how a tabletop RPG is supposed to go.

Pan151

2014-06-19, 03:40 AM

I think you and I have fundamentally differing opinions about how a tabletop RPG is supposed to go.

Some people like to think of their RPG characters as the radiant heroes of all that is good and just, for whom the prophecies speak, for whom songs shall be sang for centuries to come, who alone shall stand against the armies of terrible evil that threaten to erradicate all that is good in the realms (replace alignements as necessary for neutral/evil/lawful/chaotic campaigns).

Others think stories like the above are terribly unispired and uninteresting. When the hero was from the very start meant to be "the hero", is he really even worthy of the title?

However, it is not your place, ever, to punish people for their behavior.
Most especially, manipulating the rules and cheating in order to punish a player and get your way is immature and disrespectful. Always avoid that.

Exactly.

Disallowing a player from performing an action for no reason other than you not liking it is disrepectful and bad DMing.

Player character interactions are to be handled between players. If a player character steals from another, a DM should not stop them. They could manimulate future events so that the theft is revealed, if they think that would be for the best, but they should never directly intervene. Let the players themeselves decide what happens. Maybe they kill the thief. Maybe they administer less severe punishment and take measures for that to never happen again. Maybe they don't even care. Let them decide it. Throwing the player out of the appartment for daring playing a character as its personality would suggest is inelegant at best...

PS. This of course applies if the person in question plays their character to its personality. If the LG cleric suddenly decides to steal an extra share of treasure for himself, the DM is whithin their rights to at least demand some explanation for that action.

QuackParker

2014-06-19, 03:47 AM

This is dangerous advice, and represents the opposite of what a good DM should do.

It is important to remember several things when running a game of D&D:
You have both the obligation to treat your players with respect and the right to expect respect from them in turn.
Your role as DM imposes responsibilities on you, but also grants you considerable authority. You don't need to apologize for that.
However, it is not your place, ever, to punish people for their behavior.
Most especially, manipulating the rules and cheating in order to punish a player and get your way is immature and disrespectful. Always avoid that.
Simply communicate your expectations. Anyone who is not comfortable with your rules should not be in your group. Politely thank them for attending and show them the door.

Really, this is an easy rule: don't be an ass, and don't tolerate anyone who's an ass to you or your friends.

In our campaigns, we actually do punish/reward our players for their behavior. Angry, OOC outbursts, causing distractions, and engaging in off-topic activities earn negatives to XP while active roleplaying, attentiveness to other player's actions, and focusing on the game earn bonuses.

As for whether or not stealing from other PCs should be allowed or discouraged, I think it depends on the campaign. If most of the players want to play law abiding heroes and pursue good, wholesome questing, then I generally insist everyone play a good character for the sake of cohesion.
However, if its just 5 people bound together by a limited common goal, then by all means let your creepy necromancer subtly poison your paladin while he sleeps or the amoral rogue keep the +4 mithral dagger she found in the hidden chest.

Valluman

2014-06-19, 04:04 AM

If you have NPCs in the party, have them discover what's going on. NPCs serve as way for the DM to easily work his will into a campaign without random events or gods showing up. If the party is good aligned, they'll no doubt be merciful and try to get the other PC to redeem himself in their eyes and let someone else handle loot. If it's against the player's alignment, you can also argue this with him.

If it's an OOC problem, keep it that way and have a sit down with the PC and explain to him why he shouldn't do it.

Always remember that your job as a DM isn't just to enable your players and let them have fun, it's also to be the mediator.

prufock

2014-06-19, 07:05 AM

Well, this takes the cake as the worst piece of DMing I've ever seen, and there's no shortage of bad DMing in these boards...
Come on, this doesn't even crack the top 100.

When you have an in-character problem, you solve it in-character.
A character is nothing more than an extension of the player. The player controls all of the character's actions. If the character presents inappropriate behaviour, the player is likewise displaying inappropriate behaviour. If that behaviour makes the game less fun, the player is the one making the choices and so the player is the one that should be corrected.

PCs are not special.
Yes they are. Just off the top of my head, they get 4d6 instead of 3d6 for ability scores. They get access to PC classes rather than NPC classes. They accomplish deeds that are outside the norm. They're probably some disconcerting combination of weird monstrous races and/or templates.

Disallowing a player from performing an action for no reason other than you not liking it is disrepectful and bad DMing.
"Not liking it" is not the reason. Disrupting the game is the reason. Creating intra-party conflict is the reason.

Your mistake is in assuming everyone likes the same type of game you like. If you like gritty, dark, everyman characters that stab each other in the back, and the rest of your group likes that style as well, you're welcome to it. Not everyone enjoys that, just like not everyone enjoys the black-and-white heroic style. You need to look past your own nose.

"Gentlemen's/Ladies' Agreements" should be made explicit before the game starts. In some games, duplicitous party behaviour is acceptable, even encouraged. In others, you want cooperation and smooth party dynamic. There is a field of grey between these. You need to tailor the agreement to your group; if they like backstabby games, let them have it. If they don't, make it clear that their characters need to work together and that there should be no reason for pvp.

Angelalex242

2014-06-19, 07:19 AM

Quite so. I generally expect my players to be heroes. Heroes may argue with each other, but they're friends first, and you generally don't punch your friend in the nose, rip him off, or otherwise do friendship ending things.

Now, if the party rogue (CG) wants to rip off NPCs, that's fine, it doesn't damage the party cohesion in any way, though he should really limit his activities to suitable targets. (Robbing the evil baron blind is fine, robbing the good shopkeeper, not so much.) This is generally justified as 'destroying the supply lines of the enemy.' At least, that's how the party Paladin and/or LG cleric looks at it. It's not how he'd do things, but sappers and saboteurs are a valid part of any war.

The thing is, the rule is, save it for the enemy! I generally leave enough evil NPCs wandering around waiting for the noble rogue to rip them off. And if the noble rogue gives some of what he ripped off to the poor, it's AMAZING how much extra loot he finds in the pockets of evil.

You get the idea.

Doug Lampert

2014-06-19, 08:14 AM

We had a person do this in our group sort of. She believed whatever corpses SHE looted she got that stuff. So being a rogue when the group was fighting she'd run around looting bodies and occasionally stabbing something. One boss fight dropped a pearl of power. The cleric in the group got all excited and the rogue said "sweet I can probably sell this for a few thousand gold and get some better weapons!". The cleric got super pissed about it. We talked to her and she just kept saying "i'm a rogue, rogues steal stuff."

I'm an adventurer, I kill evil people and take their stuff.

Thus do I give a new commandment:

Thou shalt not steal from or otherwise screw over thy party members. In doing so, thou renounceth thy PC Halo and Plot Armor.

The rogue who steals from the party and says 'I'm a rogue, I steal stuff!" The cleric's reply. "I'm a cleric, I cast hold person. Make a will save." "You failed? I coup de gras you as many times as it takes to make you -10 dead. Then I take your stuff, divide it evenly among the party, we sell it to buy ourselves better stuff."

Yep, the problem isn't the theft, it's the assumption that theft has no consequences.

And guess who sounds like more of a **** there? The cleric. Except maybe an NE cleric. But seriously, learn to separate your hatred for betrayal from the game dude. Its a game. You take "He minorly inconveniences that party" and respond with "Kill the bitch, make him roll a new character." Thats just bad DMing there bro.

What?! First, that's not a DM action, that's a character action, and second, if LG characters are allowed to kill bandits who rob farmers and take the bandit's stuff WTF wouldn't they kill someone who steals from them and takes their own stuff?

Seriously, killing a guy who robs you in D&D land is not evil.

Dimcair

2014-06-19, 08:27 AM

At least with stealing it stays in the family.... We have a druid who burries and hides all gems and currency he finds. And no, he doesn't remember where he hid the stuff. He simply doesn't comprehend the concept of money ~.^

Yuric the Bold

2014-06-19, 09:01 AM

Honestly if a PC wants to steal from the party I say let it play out.
At some point or another he/she is going to get caught by the party... or get that shiny new sword which happens to be cursed?! OMG ... how did that HAPPEN?

The thief is asking for Remove Curse? Why would you ever need that spell? We never came across any cursed magical items!
OH! You picked it up while no one was looking? You were tactically positioning yourself behind the dragon's hoard of coins? Oh you were scooping mounds of gold into your Bag of Holding?

PCs who want to play absolute pains in the ass for characters and be disruptive to cohesive play around the table should be given one of two options...
1) stop their disruptive behavior and return to a normal in party role; instead of being a backstabbing loot-whore jackass
2) be told that their presence is no longer required for this particular campaign and that their character is now retired;
you'll shoot them a text/email/phone call when they are welcome at the gaming table once again

I had a former roomate and player who loved nothing better than to kick the hornet's nest and play characters that would infuriate the party to no end.
Needless to say he lasted less than 3 months around our gaming table and even though we're still friends; he knows he brought it on himself.
Let's just say, he misses gaming A LOT.

Segev

2014-06-19, 09:13 AM

Really, we can't give advice that is helpful without knowing for sure how the other players feel about it OOC.

Once we know that, we can give advice as to how, or even whether, to handle it.

Millennium

2014-06-19, 10:37 AM

The way I run these things at my table is fairly simple: intra-party conflict is good, but inter-player conflict is not. If you want to act against another PC (by stealing from them, for example), then you need to get the player's permission.

I prefer that you work this out between you in advance, negotiate something that you both agree on, and then bring your deal to me together. That's the easiest way to verify that everyone agrees on what the deal means. If you do this, then I may waive die rolls as needed to make the deal play out, but I will also hold you both to the deal.

You can try to act without getting advance permission, but this is risky. The other player can veto you -he can't dictate your actions, but can dictate whether or not you succeed- and I won't stop the session just so you can negotiate a deal that you should have negotiated between sessions. If drama ensues from this, you will be held at fault.

torrasque666

2014-06-19, 11:00 AM

A character is nothing more than an extension of the player. The player controls all of the character's actions. If the character presents inappropriate behaviour, the player is likewise displaying inappropriate behaviour. If that behaviour makes the game less fun, the player is the one making the choices and so the player is the one that should be corrected.

By that same logic the NPCs are nothing more than extensions of the DM and their evil actions/inappropriate behavior should reflect on the DM.

Yes they are. Just off the top of my head, they get 4d6 instead of 3d6 for ability scores. They get access to PC classes rather than NPC classes. They accomplish deeds that are outside the norm. They're probably some disconcerting combination of weird monstrous races and/or templates.

Nope, by rolling they still get 3d6. It just seems like 4d6 but remember that its "To create an ability score for your character, roll four six-sided dice(4d6). Disregard the lowest die roll and total the three highest ones." so its 4d6 drop lowest resulting in, guess what? 3d6.
[/QUOTE]

Quite so. I generally expect my players to be heroes. Heroes may argue with each other, but they're friends first, and you generally don't punch your friend in the nose, rip him off, or otherwise do friendship ending things.

Now, if the party rogue (CG) wants to rip off NPCs, that's fine, it doesn't damage the party cohesion in any way, though he should really limit his activities to suitable targets. (Robbing the evil baron blind is fine, robbing the good shopkeeper, not so much.) This is generally justified as 'destroying the supply lines of the enemy.' At least, that's how the party Paladin and/or LG cleric looks at it. It's not how he'd do things, but sappers and saboteurs are a valid part of any war.

The thing is, the rule is, save it for the enemy! I generally leave enough evil NPCs wandering around waiting for the noble rogue to rip them off. And if the noble rogue gives some of what he ripped off to the poor, it's AMAZING how much extra loot he finds in the pockets of evil.

You get the idea.

You assume that these are all lifelong friends and adventuring buddies rather than a bunch of ragtag strangers who are just working together because hey, they frequent the same bar, they know each other's names well enough to say "Yo. Barkeep's looking for a group of people for stuff. Want in? No one else does." or its someone else gathering them. In my games I have NEVER begun as friends with the party ,usually barely even knowing who they are. I may become friends over time, but not to start.

What?! First, that's not a DM action, that's a character action, and second, if LG characters are allowed to kill bandits who rob farmers and take the bandit's stuff WTF wouldn't they kill someone who steals from them and takes their own stuff?

Seriously, killing a guy who robs you in D&D land is not evil.

Whether its DM or player action, its still the same end. Overreaction. As for your argument for killing bandits, guess what bandits do 9 times out of 10 to get the stuff they took? They killed, or at the very least harmed/threatened to harm the victim. You don't send an adventuring party to kill the embezzling accountant. 99% of the time you don't even kill the cutpurse who tries to AVOID harming people. You get your **** back, but nonviolent crimes do NOT earn a violent response. Especially not from a LG character.

prufock

2014-06-19, 12:55 PM

By that same logic the NPCs are nothing more than extensions of the DM and their evil actions/inappropriate behavior should reflect on the DM.
Yes, it should. If a DM is engaging in inappropriate behaviour at the gaming table, he/she should be corrected by the players. It cuts both ways.

Nope, by rolling they still get 3d6. It just seems like 4d6 but remember that its "To create an ability score for your character, roll four six-sided dice(4d6). Disregard the lowest die roll and total the three highest ones." so its 4d6 drop lowest resulting in, guess what? 3d6.
I did make a mistake here; it should say "best three of 4d6" which is, on average, about 1.75 points higher than 3d6. The distribution of 4d6b3 is different than 3d6, so yes, the PCs are still special.

Mnemnosyne

2014-06-19, 01:02 PM

This, this above all other times when playing D&D seems to me the time when the DM must adhere most strictly to the sacred duty of being the completely impartial arbiter of the rules and nothing more, never introducing or allowing bias to creep into his decisions as far as a player action regarding another player goes.

If a character steals from a party member, the DM must be absolutely impartial with his handling of that. Every roll must be rolled correctly with no fudging, he must remember to do all rolls that should be in secret in secret, must remember to apply all relevant modifiers to all rolls in question, and consider very carefully any circumstance modifiers he may choose to apply, to make sure that they are entirely fair and based purely on the in-character situation, not any bias the DM is suffering from.

If the players are aware of what happened but the characters are not, the DM must then be doubly vigilant to ensure that the other characters are not intentionally trying to 'discover' something purely because their players are aware of it OOC.

Only by being extra careful to do only their part as a neutral arbiter can the DM properly execute his duties in this difficult situation. Unless, of course, the players have all made an explicit out of character agreement that their characters shall never be permitted to harm each other.

torrasque666

2014-06-19, 01:03 PM

I did make a mistake here; it should say "best three of 4d6" which is, on average, about 1.75 points higher than 3d6. The distribution of 4d6b3 is different than 3d6, so yes, the PCs are still special.

Only barely and with crap rolls, not even then.

Adverb

2014-06-19, 01:15 PM

Segev

2014-06-19, 01:28 PM

So... not a Narrativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), then.

Not when PvP is going on; certainly not without both players agreeing to the narrative before-hand. There is nothing "fair" or even fun about a DM picking one player's character over another to benefit from plot armor. That's basically having God team up with one person against another. Perhaps interesting if you're writing a Biblical story, but that's usually NOT what we're doing in RPGs.

Pan151

2014-06-19, 05:27 PM

Yes, it should. If a DM is engaging in inappropriate behaviour at the gaming table, he/she should be corrected by the players. It cuts both ways.

So, next time you have an NPC thief steal from a player character, should the player pick up your DMG, tear it in half and tell you not to do that again or he'll throw you out of the house? What if an NPC necromancer tricks a member ofthe party into having a necrotic cyst implanted in their bodies. What if an NPC barbarian charges the party because they've plain pissed him off? Would that be inappropriate behaviour on the part of the DM?

If not, then there shouldn't be any problem with a player having their PC do those things, either. Not unless seem to be persistently stuck in the Neutral-Evil-Ninja-Assasin-Drow mentality no matter what character they play - then yes, it is an OOC problem. But a single CN cleptomaniac/CE murderous psychopath (that the party themselves allowed in their team, no less!) is not.

Krobar

2014-06-19, 05:45 PM

I make sure the PCs figure it out and then they can deal with it as they wish.

jiriku

2014-06-19, 05:51 PM

Really, it's simple, dude. Look to your left. Look to your right. If your friends around the gaming table are laughing and smiling and happy with you when you play, then good job, well done. But if they're staring at you with expressions of irritation and annoyance at that thing you just did, you're doing it wrong.

I've had disruptive players at my gaming tables before, people who acted like douchebags and expected that "it's what my character would do" would excuse their behavior. The other players approached me in private and said "deal with that guy, will you please?" It was an obvious interpersonal problem between people. For better or worse, the DM is the leader. It's a leader's job to deal with people problems; that's what leaders do. Once the issue was dealt with and the problem player either changed behavior or left the group, peace resumed and much enjoyable gaming was achieved. Life is like this everywhere, not just at the gaming table.

jedipotter

2014-06-19, 06:59 PM

It is important to remember several things when running a game of D&D:
You have both the obligation to treat your players with respect and the right to expect respect from them in turn.
Your role as DM imposes responsibilities on you, but also grants you considerable authority. You don't need to apologize for that.
However, it is not your place, ever, to punish people for their behavior.
Most especially, manipulating the rules and cheating in order to punish a player and get your way is immature and disrespectful. Always avoid that.
Simply communicate your expectations. Anyone who is not comfortable with your rules should not be in your group. Politely thank them for attending and show them the door.

I'd say more

Players must treat the DM with the utmost respect at all times, though they may act how they wish to each other.
The DM is The Authority, players tremble at his Word.
The DM has to babysit and punish the immature players, as needed.
The DM is not bound by the 'rules', and may do as they wish. A DM can't cheat, any and all they do is ok.
Be ready to toss people out on a whim.

Pex

2014-06-19, 07:44 PM

No. The problem is the character. The character is the one that's a cleptomaniac and a liability, not the player - the player is merely playing the character as their personality dictates. If the other characters are too naive to understand that they need to keep an eye on the guy who happens to be a professional thief, then they should expect to be robbed blind. If they have a problem with cleptomaniac characters, then they should probably not have accepted one in their party in the first place.

Seriously, why would you expect otherwise? Would you also expect the theiving character to be honest with you if it was an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Would you expect the theiving character to be honest towards an NPC? No, you wouldn't. Then why would you expect a PC to behave differently towards other PCs? He doesn't have any special attachment to the other PCs, they're not his friends, they're not his superiors, they're not his family - they just happen to be temporary associates for whatever reason.

PCs are not special. Just because 2 characters are PCs does not mean that they have to interact differently than 2 NPCs or an NPC and a PC. If one of the two is a thief, then expect him to steal anything that he can get away with, be it from an NPC or from a PC. If one of the two is a murderous psychopath, he might attack anyone, be it a PC or an NPC. Expecting PvP to be magically nonexitant and, even worse, enforcing it with pure DM fiat serves only to break immersion and is a sign of an absolutely terrible DM. If you're not ok with PvP, the way you deal with it is not by Rule 0 - it's by not just letting anyone and their mother enter the party. If you're not ok with thievery, then why in the nine hells did you let the chaotic neutral halfling rogue with the maxed out sleight of hand be a part of your group in the first place? What part of him exactly made you doubt he'd rob you blind if given half a chance?

And what is to stop me from killing your character and taking his stuff? If everyone is in it just for themselves and you're no special anyone just because you're a player, then what difference does it make? I kill you character and your next and the one after that. You play a thief; I play a murdering hobo.

aleucard

2014-06-19, 08:12 PM

I'd say more

Players must treat the DM with the utmost respect at all times, though they may act how they wish to each other.
The DM is The Authority, players tremble at his Word.
The DM has to babysit and punish the immature players, as needed.
The DM is not bound by the 'rules', and may do as they wish. A DM can't cheat, any and all they do is ok.
Be ready to toss people out on a whim.

This only lasts so long as the players are willing to put up with an adversarial DM. Nobody likes being marginalized or treated as a thing. The players are not there for the DM's amusement. If the DM wishes to lord over the players, then the players have the right to either demand a salary for being made to work rather than have fun or bash the offending prick's teeth in with their own DMG until they either grow a sense of common decency or go out the door.

While the DM's job doesn't necessarily include dealing with PVP, the best way to do it is to check with the other players. Not everyone likes playing a game where they have to watch for their teammates to backstab them. If the DM is fine with this occurring in the current campaign, they should notify the players before they even get to the point of deciding when the campaign is to occur. If one of the players insists on initiating PVP (by way of stealing from another player, not just employing first pick from the loot), then the day after, the players should be notified that a PVP action has been taken. This is to both ensure that the offending player isn't ousted immediately (unless if they bork a roll or something, then all bets are off) and to ensure that the other players know that PVP is now active. I wouldn't want to have the initial PVP action broadcasted so that players aren't tempted to invoke OOC knowledge. The biggest issue with this course of action, obviously, is the possibility for it to cause a campaign implosion from the shattering of the Gentleman's Agreement that it represents. People have a tendency to get pissy with traitors of any sort, even (if not especially) in a game like this. Just look at the negative reactions to trolls in games like TF2 and Dark Souls, especially the ones who troll their own team. PVP CAN be interesting and make for an amusing campaign twist, but it is a minefield even when executed perfectly. Doing it without knowing all the players involved (DM included) as much as is humanly possible is ill-advised at least, sometimes even if the campaign is advertised as PVP-On from the onset.

Pan151

2014-06-19, 08:18 PM

And what is to stop me from killing your character and taking his stuff? If everyone is in it just for themselves and you're no special anyone just because you're a player, then what difference does it make? I kill you character and your next and the one after that. You play a thief; I play a murdering hobo.

If your character the kind of guy that would do that thing when he feels he could get away with it, then by all means do so. If that really is your character's personality, then why would he not stay true to it (of course, if your character's personality is not at all like that, then you're just being a jerk).

However, that would entail that the rest of your party are the kind of guys that would go "This guy, who is obviously a dishonorable murderous psychopath with few redeeming qualities wants to join our party. Let's accept him and take no precautions against any potential problems he might cause, that sounds like a good idea it does!". They are literally asking to be stabbed in the back, you might as well save your DM the trouble and help them along yourself. Just because they're the main characters in the story should not make them immune to their own incompetence...

If you're not ok with murdering hobos and/or thieves in your party then you kill them on sight and ask the player to come up with a character that the party would actually realistically accept as one of their own. You don't let them in and then get upset that they're murdering hobos and/or thieves (again, if the LG paladin you recruited last week suddenly starts hiding parts of the loot then you do indeed beat some sense into the player so that his character's personality is consistent)

Alex12

2014-06-19, 09:15 PM

In the group I'm in, PvP is assumed to be on the table unless specifically mentioned otherwise, and the entire group knows it. We also all play with laptops and a messaging system so the DM can quickly and secretly send us stuff.

So theft is a viable option, as long as it's done properly, with actual un-fudged rolls, made in secret, with the DM's knowledge. Also, the thief should probably make it something that's not likely to be missed, since the victim will find out about it as soon as he goes through his stuff looking for it and doesn't find it. And if it's found out, well, PvP is on, so the thief better hope that either the victim don't feel like fighting him or he's strong enough to take the victim and any other party members joining in.

Hiding loot is a little easier, especially if it's something that can be passed off as having been purchased in the last town and it just hasn't come up yet for whatever reason. But, again, the person doing it better hope that the rest of the party either doesn't feel like fighting him or that he can take them if it does come to that.

Other things, like one of the casters planting Necrotic Cysts in the party while they sleep, falls into the same category.

All that said, the number one rule in our group is that there are no secrets from the DM. If you want to steal something from the party, make sure the DM knows. If you want to secretly plant a magical kill-switch on a party member, the DM must know (and will roll it out as appropriate. You don't have to keep reminding the DM that, for example, you've got that dwarfslaying arrow, but you have to have made him aware at some point, and if he asks, you can't say you don't have it anymore when you really do. And the DM is free to take advantage of this- if you've put a necrotic cyst in a party member, and then some undead attack and the party wonders why they're taking more damage than usual and failing more saves, well, they'll figure it out.

Svata

2014-06-20, 03:53 AM

the_other_gm

2014-06-20, 04:28 AM

Personally speaking I have a "No jerks" rule.

If you're going to be a jerk to others around the table, you can either leave by your own volition or through some outside force. Either way, you're no longer welcome at my table. Unless such a thing as stealing, committing dark/evil acts "on screen",etc... is vocally agreed upon by the others at the table, don't try it. You can bring it up before or after a session, but don't do it during.

PCs that steal from others or break this rule are not "in-character problems". The player made the very conscious decision to bring such a disruptive character to the table and was allowed in the party partially in good faith, partially because we just want to get on with the game.

"It's what my character would do!" is quickly met with "And you're the jerk who brought him to the table."

Not every character introduction is a 30minute to an hour break in the campaign as we grill/interview the prospective PC. Sometimes, heck oftentimes, it's very simply "NPC we work for hired this guy/NPC we know introduces this guy". The new guy gets a handshake and a head nod and we continue the adventure, because we have 3-4 hours to play this week and oftentimes don't want to break the pace we're going at and get sidetracked as real life has, on more then a few occasions, caused us to cancel a few sessions.

Pan151

2014-06-20, 04:45 AM

"It's what my character would do!" is quickly met with "And you're the jerk who brought him to the table."

Which is then quickly met with "And you are the fools who thought inviting said jerk to the party was a good idea".

And no, you don't need a 30-minute interview for your characters to be able to tell whether or not a new recruit is bad news or not. They just need half a working brain and maybe a Detect Alignment spell. Plus the little common knowledge necessary to treat any and all recruits as potential enemies for as long as it takes to make 100% sure they are not.

Angelalex242

2014-06-20, 05:19 AM

Alright, I think I get what the problem is.

Pan likes running evil games, where everybody's a murderhobo sneak thief willing to go Heath Ledger's Joker on each other at the drop of a hat. It's a 'Legion of Doom' type of game. If Lex Luthor backstabs Brainiac who's busy backstabbing Sinestro, well, that's just how evil is done.

I'm running a game of noble heroes and do gooders out to, well, DO GOOD. Frankly, I don't even let my players play neutral alignments, it's (anything) good you want to be. I do allow the Book of Exalted Deeds in case people want to be even more good then good. It's even encouraged. And should the whole party (even the rogue!) end up earning the Saint template, I'm perfectly okay with that. As such, it is literally inconceivable such a part of good, often Exalted characters would backstab each other for any reason. Indeed, the PCs often trip over themselves to save each other. When misfortune happens, the first question PCs ask is 'how do I save him?' The team even allots a portion of party treasure to the 'resurrection fund' should things go wrong. Everyone contributes to it, and thus it's there for anyone who rolls a 1 on their saving throw.

When your heroes can tell the villagers, "Thanks, but the reward of a job well done is reward enough", then you've got heroes. (And I took care of their WBL anyway, just so they can refuse rewards without losing anything by it)

the_other_gm

2014-06-20, 05:41 AM

Which is then quickly met with "And you are the fools who thought inviting said jerk to the party was a good idea".

And no, you don't need a 30-minute interview for your characters to be able to tell whether or not a new recruit is bad news or not. They just need half a working brain and maybe a Detect Alignment spell. Plus the little common knowledge necessary to treat any and all recruits as potential enemies for as long as it takes to make 100% sure they are not.

There is no fool to be seen. If you (the general "you" not Pan specifically) join my game, you will be doing so knowing what kind of game I'm running and what I expect. To bring a disruptive character to the table means you actively lying to me and the other players (I don't know if lying is the correct term, but the player is dishonest in his motivations).

Quite simply put, I see no reason to deal with disruptive people.

If you're going to be a jerk to others around the table, you can either leave by your own volition or through some outside force. Either way, you're no longer welcome at my table.

The player will not be missed next session.

Pan151

2014-06-20, 06:10 AM

Pan likes running evil games, where everybody's a murderhobo sneak thief willing to go Heath Ledger's Joker on each other at the drop of a hat. It's a 'Legion of Doom' type of game. If Lex Luthor backstabs Brainiac who's busy backstabbing Sinestro, well, that's just how evil is done.

No. I like games where characters have real, belieavable personalities and they are played like actual, believable people. I dislike games where the players cooperate for no reason other than "we are all player characters so we have to" and are pitted against NPCs that are irredeemably evil for no reason other than "they have to, because the PCs need someone to kill without any questions having to be asked". In short, games where the characters' actions are overly influenced by OOC reasons.

Just in case you're wandering, a party where everyone backstabs each other does not fall under the "characters with believable personalities" category, because if they did have believable personalities, then they'd have gone each their own ways long before they got to that point. A single character that steals here and there until he's caught, on the other hand, is a different matter altogether. And everyone's well within their right to say that they wouldn't want to allow something like that in their game, either because they prefer over-the-top black 'n white heroic fantasy or because they plain just can't be bothered to properly roleplay it, but then they have to keep in mind that this then becomes an OOC problem on their part, not on the player who played the role of the thief that one time.

PS. Again, the above do not apply to players that are consistently disruptive whatever character they play (as opposed to playing a disruptive character for once, which is what I was talking about).

Angelalex242

2014-06-20, 11:39 AM

I dunno. In the Legion of Doom type game I thought you were describing, the personalities, such as they are, of Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Sinestro, Joker, Cheetah, Professor Zoom, Gorilla Grod, Solomon Grundy, etc. all have very believable personalities for the DC Comics world they live in. Getting them to cooperate, on the other hand...well...

Joker, especially, is likely to leave a bomb in a whoopee cushion specifically for the evuls and the lulz. Even Heath Ledger's Joker, in the first scene of the movie, had his evil organization backstabbing everyone "You shoot this guy" "After he shoots that guy, you shoot this guy..." Up until Joker himself shoots the last guy and takes all the loot. That's what an evil game looks like. "Hey, if you shoot him, we have one less way to divide the loot..."

Svata

2014-06-20, 11:52 AM

So, next time you have an NPC thief steal from a player character, should the player pick up your DMG, tear it in half and tell you not to do that again or he'll throw you out of the house? What if an NPC necromancer tricks a member ofthe party into having a necrotic cyst implanted in their bodies. What if an NPC barbarian charges the party because they've plain pissed him off? Would that be inappropriate behaviour on the part of the DM?

If not, then there shouldn't be any problem with a player having their PC do those things, either. Not unless seem to be persistently stuck in the Neutral-Evil-Ninja-Assasin-Drow mentality no matter what character they play - then yes, it is an OOC problem. But a single CN cleptomaniac/CE murderous psychopath (that the party themselves allowed in their team, no less!) is not.

It is the antagonist's job to antagonize the party. The party's
job is to work together to overcome the antagonist, not to be as much as a hindrance to each other as the antagonist is to them. It is a cooperative game.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-20, 12:06 PM

How do you handle it when one of your PCs is hiding loot they find from other PCs to get a better cut of the treasure?

As a DM I tell the player to hand over the character sheet. They are now an antagonist to the PCs and thus not a PC any longer. Roll a new character.

The character in question then gets caught with the loot and it is role played out that he/she is leaving the group due to them holding them back or whatever.

To be fair I do tell people that they can be any alignment, they just can't become antagonist. Antagonist become NPCs.

Curmudgeon

2014-06-20, 12:37 PM

As a DM I tell the player to hand over the character sheet. They are now an antagonist to the PCs and thus not a PC any longer. Roll a new character.

The character in question then gets caught with the loot and it is role played out that he/she is leaving the group due to them holding them back or whatever.

To be fair I do tell people that they can be any alignment, they just can't become antagonist. Antagonist become NPCs.
That seems pretty harsh to me, but you've done your job properly if you established it as a house rule ahead of time.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-20, 12:45 PM

That seems pretty harsh to me, but you've done your job properly if you established it as a house rule ahead of time.

I've straight up seen friends fist fight (note: we were all jocks in HS/College so these fights weren't the stereotypical nerd fights :smalltongue:) because one pulled above crap like this.

I've seen random people (met via meetup.com) get turned off the game because of this crap.

And I've seen games get slowed to a halt for a couple hours due to this sort clown behavior.

I got sick of it and instated my No Antagonist houserule. I've only had to take one sheet since then, so I think it worked for not only loot stealing problems :smallamused:

Dimcair

2014-06-20, 01:07 PM

Dear Pan151.

I think there is a positive bias from the persons sitting to your right and left side during a game.
I would want you (as my friend) to play any character you want to play as long as its not too cheesy or OP in some RAW, not RAI kinda way.

So I would welcome your Drow-Assassin in my party.
And as long as his evilness is directed outwards that is your taste and your freedom to play it. It is NOT however an excuse to be a jerk to your fellow players.

I do not want to be the jerk who says 'NO' to the character you created.
In turn you should not spit on the trust I give you as a fellow player.

Mutual respect =).

Cheers,

Dimcair

cobaltstarfire

2014-06-20, 01:29 PM

No. I like games where characters have real, belieavable personalities and they are played like actual, believable people. I dislike games where the players cooperate for no reason other than "we are all player characters so we have to" and are pitted against NPCs that are irredeemably evil for no reason other than "they have to, because the PCs need someone to kill without any questions having to be asked". In short, games where the characters' actions are overly influenced by OOC reasons.

The OP made it pretty clear somewhere on the first page that he doesn't want PVP in his game, whether you think that it's "wrong" or anything else on their part or not doesn't really matter nor help them solve their problem?

How would I handle it? Well since the game is already started and it wasn't explicitly said from the start "Don't be jerks/No pvp" I'd probably talk to the thief about it first. Maybe even explain to them why it's making you uncomfortable like you have posted in here.

From there you can determine the best way to make it known to the group, which is most likely just telling them outright OOC and deciding together how you want to deal with it right then and in the future. If you think they'll be chill about it you can just have them start to notice things that make them suspicious IC, going that route could be pretty fun for everyone involved if it's handled right.

Seems the best way to prevent drama, that or flat out telling the thief player to knock it off please, and never bring it up again. It may be fun for the thief, but if it's at the expense of the other players it really shouldn't be allowed to happen any further.

Knaight

2014-06-20, 01:42 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-20, 01:44 PM

Magesmiley

2014-06-20, 02:06 PM

The short answer is that I let the players deal with it. If they catch the player doing it, I let them know. I also make a point to my players upfront that I stay out of PvP conflicts - that it is up to them to resolve any disagreements.
Essentially, my players are free to do as they please, but they also need to play within the world too - NPCs can react to their actions too. PCs who rob from the other players are on their own for the most part, and should expect the other PCs to deal with the offending character if they get caught. If this is in a town and the other PCs bring the authorities in, said thief can expect a punishment from the townsfolk. On the flip side, if the other PCs start beating up on the thief in town for no apparent reason, the NPCs would also get involved.
But yeah, I usually let the threat of other PCs dealing with the issue solve the problem. Any PvP thief in my games should expect that he/she is risking his/her character and needs to be mature enough about it to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Pan151

2014-06-20, 08:19 PM

It is the antagonist's job to antagonize the party. The party's
job is to work together to overcome the antagonist, not to be as much as a hindrance to each other as the antagonist is to them. It is a cooperative game.

Depends on what game you want to play. If you want to play a game where the PCs kick door open first, and ask questions... well, never, then that's the way to go. If you want something different, like for example a good story to go along with all the fighting, then maybe this black and white attitude is not ideal. In my honest opinion, the DM has only crafted a trully good villain when at least one party memeber, purely of their own volition, decides to side with them and betray the party.

Remember, the party's job being to work together is an Out of Character thing. In character, they are all people with their individual motivations and goals. From tha point, it depends on whether you want to play them purely as game characters or as actual, believeable characters. If you choose the second option, you will sooner or later find a character trying to steal from his fellow party members. And if he's being "disruptive" in-character then, quite frankly, he's not doing a good job at being a proper thief - as a thief you never want to be disruptive to your group , because that means you'll probably get caught very easily. Remember - stealing does not have to be disruptive.

Dimcair

2014-06-20, 08:38 PM

Remember, the party's job being to work together is an Out of Character thing. In character, they are all people with their individual motivations and goals.

Please also be reminded on the G in RPG. You are coming together to play a game together. Not to abuse your friends to your entertainment in playing against them.

Also be reminded on what people earlier in this thread said. Just doing something 'because my character would do it' does not justify being a jerk.

Cheers,

Dim

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-06-20, 09:05 PM

Step 1: Make it clear to them that death is the most common punishment for what they're doing.

Step 2: Make the rules for new characters that repace characters killed by or kicked out of the party by unanimous consent as cruel as you like. Make these rules common knowledge.

Step 2: Make sure that every opposed check is made.

Step 3: Wait. They'll get caught eventually.

Pan151

2014-06-20, 09:05 PM

Please also be reminded on the G in RPG. You are coming together to play a game together. Not to abuse your friends to your entertainment in playing against them.

Please also be reminded that of the RP in RPG. It's no less important than the G.

Plus, if you're doing it right, you're not "abusing" anybody. Smart thieves/evil characters know how far they can get before they start jeopardising their own well being, and that is generally not quite far enough to have any meaningful impact to the rest of the party. If a player is trully disrupting your game by stealing it's not the stealing itself that it's the problem, it's the extent to which it's happening. A few handfulls of gold and a couple of wands stolen from loot piles over the course of a month are not gonna make anyone's life miserable. Stealing that magic sword that the fighter needs, on the other hand, will.

Likewise, bluffing your party into implanting necrotic cysts inside them, so you can keep tabs on them and maybe even be able to help them out if they get caught or otherwise separated is not gonna hurt nobody. Forcefuly doing so, and then mind controlling them/making them explode obviously will.

Moderation is everything.

the_other_gm

2014-06-20, 09:10 PM

Remember, the party's job being to work together is an Out of Character thing. In character, they are all people with their individual motivations and goals. From tha point, it depends on whether you want to play them purely as game characters or as actual, believeable characters. If you choose the second option, you will sooner or later find a character trying to steal from his fellow party members. And if he's being "disruptive" in-character then, quite frankly, he's not doing a good job at being a proper thief - as a thief you never want to be disruptive to your group , because that means you'll probably get caught very easily. Remember - stealing does not have to be disruptive.

Except this argument falls apart since the people joining the party aren't random schmucks. From the in-game perspective they might as well be, but putting these people together isn't luck... it's the metagame construct of "we're all here to play a game and these are our characters".

The point is, you made the very real decision to bring in a character that is disruptive. That you try to weasel your way with excuses like "...want to play them purely as game characters or as actual, believable characters" is a sad excuse because it's still your decision to bring this disruptive character into the group.

That he's a believable character is not on trial here, it's that he's disruptive to a good session and intra-party cooperation. You could have just as easily brought a character that is very believable AND not a jerk who disrupts play.

Yet you didn't.

Pan151

2014-06-20, 09:20 PM

Except this argument falls apart since the people joining the party aren't random schmucks. From the in-game perspective they might as well be, but putting these people together isn't luck... it's the metagame construct of "we're all here to play a game and these are our characters".

If the way you want to enforce the no PvP rule is "all characters know each other for a long time, and as such all players have some limited control over the other PCs' personality" then by all means. This is probably the best way of doing it.

If the characters do not know each other for a long time, such as if one dies/retires and a new one has to take their place, this of course will not work.

At any rate, No PvP is allowed because "instantaneous divine retribution from the DM" is not a valid reason. No PvP because "there are solid in-character reasons your character would never do so" is.

the_other_gm

2014-06-20, 09:34 PM

Nowhere did I state the PCs need to know each other, just not be disruptive to play. However, the theoretical PC being brought to the table, regardless of how he's introduced to the group, is a disruptive character.

And it is entirely the player that brings said character to the table (any by extension, the party), yet could have just as easily brought a non-disruptive one.

This character would not have joined the party if not for the player being there at the table.

Trying to push out of character problems in-character does not solve the issue that the player has no problem bringing in disruptive PCs, and will do exactly that.

Knaight

2014-06-20, 11:15 PM

The point is, you made the very real decision to bring in a character that is disruptive. That you try to weasel your way with excuses like "...want to play them purely as game characters or as actual, believable characters" is a sad excuse because it's still your decision to bring this disruptive character into the group.

You're eliding two concepts here. The decision is not to bring in a character that is disruptive, the decision is to bring in a character that has conflicts with other characters. That is not an inherently disruptive thing, as it depends entirely on what it would be disrupting. If your model is the group of heroes staunchly allied against external foes, then sure, it disrupts that model in an egregious way. That's not the only way to play the game though, and if the model everyone wants to work with is, say, a character drama centered on the conflicts between a group of people who are all part of a greater organization, it fits in fine. More than that, a character that doesn't have any conflicts with other players will potentially be disruptive. One is fine, but a few start breaking the group template wide open.

Yahzi

2014-06-21, 01:24 AM

I'm running a game of noble heroes and do gooders
I think your original reaction was a bit extreme. But essentially I agree with you.

You no doubt told your players that they were running Team Good. And clearly, stealing from your friends and allies - especially while they're trying to do Good - is an evil act. Therefore, once the player does that, he has violated the rules of character design you laid out, and you're as entitled to dismiss his character as you would be if he came to the table with a 21st level Gestalt character.

My personal approach is to make the game world so dangerous that the characters have to stick together or die.

On the other hand, we once ran a Team Evil game where a different player became the GM every adventure (his/her characters would sit out that adventure). Me and a fellow player started stealing from the party, and we had to inform each successive DM of the scam as it became their turn. Our DM/players were very good about overseeing the theft FROM THEIR OWN CHARACTERS, although they did get a bit annoyed at how slow the rest of the party was to catch on. Of course that game ended in a TPK-by-PVP, but we all knew that was were it was eventually headed anyway - the trick was to see if you could come out on top.

the_other_gm

2014-06-21, 01:52 AM

There are differences between conflicts and being disruptive though, and I very much make the difference between the two.

Two characters who have different ideologies can still work together for a common goal unless they take these ideologies to radical extremes and the game comes to a screeching halt and start potentially being disruptive depending on how it plays out. The games I play in have a wide variety of characters with differing ideas on how to approach situations but none of them involve taking actively disruptive or malicious actions against other PCs or players. Conflict arise from these personalities clashing, but just like in real life they rarely come to blows or theft in any but the most extreme cases (and even then it's discussed civilly by the players whereas the character are arguing. If it gets too harsh and one or both characters agree it's time to part ways, then we introduce a replacement PC that fits better with the group).

Stealing from the party, among other activities like engaging in deadly/sudden PVP, etc... are activities that by their core are disruptive to most interpersonal relationships. I don't really care if the fighter & ranger decide to go mano-a-mano to decide who's the best swordman as long as they keep it non-lethal. I do care if the rogue decides to suddenly kill the fighter in his sleep because "it's what his character would do".

That is not "playing a conflict" it's being a jerk.

Now, I don't share the exact same view on some topics as my friends, but we compromise on those things and have fun together regardless. I do not care for thieves or violent people though, as I can assume this is something most people would agree with. If I see someone stealing or have proof they did, I break relations with that person. I have done so in the past and will do so in the future if it happens again.

That it's a technically valid playstyle doesn't mean it needs to be supported by every table and every group.

If everyone agrees to this style of play, where one cannot truly trust one another, fine, but I wouldn't be seen or asked to play at that table because I don't care for it. But such a game/table is a wholly different story then simply dropping such a disruptive character on any given random playgroup and I would consider this outside the norm in every table I've sat at. You don't just roll up a character, drop him down and start stealing from the group... that character would never have passed the group veto if you mentioned his kleptomaniac ways.

And if you can't muster that basic decency, door's that way.

Knaight

2014-06-21, 03:28 AM

There are differences between conflicts and being disruptive though, and I very much make the difference between the two.

Two characters who have different ideologies can still work together for a common goal unless they take these ideologies to radical extremes and the game comes to a screeching halt and start potentially being disruptive depending on how it plays out. The games I play in have a wide variety of characters with differing ideas on how to approach situations but none of them involve taking actively disruptive or malicious actions against other PCs or players. Conflict arise from these personalities clashing, but just like in real life they rarely come to blows or theft in any but the most extreme cases (and even then it's discussed civilly by the players whereas the character are arguing. If it gets too harsh and one or both characters agree it's time to part ways, then we introduce a replacement PC that fits better with the group).
While I'd note that this is the typical place for conflicts to exist, I'd consider it usually valuable to have the possibility of escalation. The thievery is actually a lesser case here - it could come up with a particularly relevant item (consider the Arkenstone in The Hobbit), but the casual pilfering of loot isn't really appropriate outside of a group of rogues - in the character sense of the word, not the class.

Stealing from the party, among other activities like engaging in deadly/sudden PVP, etc... are activities that by their core are disruptive to most interpersonal relationships. I don't really care if the fighter & ranger decide to go mano-a-mano to decide who's the best swordman as long as they keep it non-lethal. I do care if the rogue decides to suddenly kill the fighter in his sleep because "it's what his character would do".

That is not "playing a conflict" it's being a jerk.
Yes, they are disruptive to interpersonal relationships. That's pretty much the point - character conflict can be an interesting and dramatic moment, an even the basis of an entire game. The moment when, say, one character wants to kill a prisoner that has personally wronged them, and another character has taken their protection (as a prisoner) on their honor? That's a memorable moment. It will almost certainly end with somebody backing down, but it's the possibility that it won't that makes it work.

Now, just stealing stuff 'for the lulz'? That's actively detrimental to all but the most beer and pretzels play, and all sorts of obnoxious. Murdering a party member in their sleep is pretty much the same thing, unless it's something like the culmination to a series of escalating threats and actions. So on and so forth.

Basically, this all comes down to the group template. The group as a whole is supposed to be something, and it's very good to have that hashed out ahead of time. If you know that the template is a group of heroes out against the villains in the world and make the thieving rogue anyways? Then you're just being a jerk. The same thing applies if you know full well that the template is a band of misfits with no real allegiance and you show up with a paladin.

aleucard

2014-06-21, 06:14 AM

Alright, let's change the discussion a little bit so that the point can be made clearer.

Lets say that you are a player, and join a group of relative newbies. While their library is limited, they are willing to allow most anything as long as you bring the book its in and let the other members of the group read and possibly use it. The book you're bringing to the table? Complete Warrior. The class you're going into out of that book? Frenzied Berserker. You play your character as true to the mechanics and fluff as possible. After the first significant combat encounter, you stuff your axe in the back of the cleric's skull because you're still Frenzied after the end of it and failed your Will save, to the surprise of everyone at the table but you (DM included).

How in the f@#$ do you THINK this is going to end? Springing a backstabber on the rest of the party without advance warning of some kind has similar connotations. You see, most games have the players thinking they have a form of Plot Armor against the other players so that the team can actually be a team, regardless of what they all individually are playing. The game changes significantly when that armor is removed, and few players will design their characters for the former thinking of the chance that the latter may come into play somewhere down the line. This, along with what I described earlier, WILL cause OOC problems with the majority of groups. They may or may not be plainly visible, but they WILL affect the game. Your best-case scenario is if the non-backstabbing members of the group eventually give the backstabber(s) a swift kick in the ass out of the group when it comes to light in-character. Knowing what people are like even without this kind of 'motivation', I shouldn't need to detail what could happen at the worse end of the spectrum, right?

We have no problem if you like to play a quote unquote REALISTIC (tm) game and have PVP available at all times. However, if the campaign is to be of this type from the start, the players NEED to know about it, lest something like I described above occur, with the DM being viewed just as poorly as the backstabbing PC to boot. This can kill friendships just as easily as campaigns.

Starchild7309

2014-06-21, 06:48 AM

I am probably coming into this discussion a little late, but I will relay a few experiences I had.

First and example of where one PC stealing caused a problem. I was playing a rogue who fell in league with a young green dragon. The party was on average around 13th level and the dragon convinced me that we should take all the party's stuff. (we were all decked out pretty decently) I plotted and schemed secretly with the dragon (DM) about how to do this. Once I had a solid plan (that took months of hatching and planning) I just had to wait for the opportune time. Said time came and a case of bad rolls took over and my said rogue was begging for his life and was spared, but no longer allowed to continue on with the party. I rerolled...everyone enjoyed it as it was a well thought out and interesting plot line that took no fiat for the dm to make happen. I tried and I failed and accepted the groups decision and no one looked at my next character like "we better watch him" because all was done in the spirit and method of r/ping a character.

My second example is of a rogue played by one of my former DMs....He was an orc that was our only scout. He would scout ahead and search and if he found 100 gp he would dip 20 gp off the top. We all knew he was doing it, but since we try very hard not to meta game, we just grinned and had to accept it. He was not abusing the wealth system, just getting his "risk" pay. Did we agree with it? No, but in the confines of the game with out meta gaming, no one knew any better and it never hurt the game.

Third example goes all the way back to 2nd edition when a DM gave our rogue a ring of invisibility. He got caught eventually stealing because he went over board. Was stealing from commoners, from us, from nobles, pretty much anyone he could shove a hand in their pocket he would take something. We spent half a night with him at the table stealing and again because our group of about 5 of us, does not meta game and we make an attempt to r/p fully we accepted it, but also when he got caught he was killed for his treason.

The biggest issue I have seen with any of this is when the one doing the stealing does not want to accept the penalty for getting caught. They like to hide behind the "I was just r/ping" line. However, even if they are r/ping you are stealing and have to face consequences. Everyone in my group has at some point pushed the envelope of "friendly" play to create story, gain advantage, or whatever, but we all also understand that if you do such a thing, and you get caught, you upset someone, you may be facing being kicked out of the group or character death at the most severe.

All in all this is a game. You should have fun with it. And those that would argue having some one steal from you is not fun, I would say this. Having some one drop a draw 4 on you in UNO is not fun either, but its part of the game, you can either accept that or play a different game. Eventually, some where down the line someone will do something that you disagree with, but this is not life or death, this is a r/ping game where fantastic, amazing sometimes tragic and horrible things occur.

aleucard

2014-06-21, 07:42 AM

All in all this is a game. You should have fun with it. And those that would argue having some one steal from you is not fun, I would say this. Having some one drop a draw 4 on you in UNO is not fun either, but its part of the game, you can either accept that or play a different game. Eventually, some where down the line someone will do something that you disagree with, but this is not life or death, this is a r/ping game where fantastic, amazing sometimes tragic and horrible things occur.

Absolutely nobody here has a problem with that. The problem that we have, however, is that the players need to know that this is on the table from the start of the campaign. The type of game where PVP is active is a VERY different game from where it is not, and not everyone likes the second option.

cobaltstarfire

2014-06-21, 09:05 AM

.

All in all this is a game. You should have fun with it. And those that would argue having some one steal from you is not fun, I would say this. Having some one drop a draw 4 on you in UNO is not fun either, but its part of the game, you can either accept that or play a different game. Eventually, some where down the line someone will do something that you disagree with, but this is not life or death, this is a r/ping game where fantastic, amazing sometimes tragic and horrible things occur.

There is more than one way to play the game, isn't that like on one of the first pages of the DMG? Some people don't like or enjoy pvp because for some people it has a negative effect on the party both IC and OOC and that's just bollocks.

I honestly am neutral on PVP, it doesn't bother me if it happens, but it's not hard at all to see where and why many people won't like it and would prefer it be disallowed. The difference between getting smashed in UNO and getting killed or stolen from in D&D, is that UNO is always a competitive game, while D&D is generally thought of as a cooperative game, which means when someone betrays the parties trust it can lead up to some very sour feelings, regardless of how "realistic" it was.

Also, it is possible to have a party work together towards a unified goal and make sense, I can't think of many games I've played in where the DM and/or the party didn't work it out so that everyone involved had a reason to be on a particular quest, even if it may not have been entirely obvious.

Angelalex242

2014-06-22, 01:27 PM

Exactly. Nobody gets mad when they lose a chess game (except for kicking themselves when they realized where they blundered). But still, it's expected your opponent will try to win.

Nobody expects betrayal from a fellow PC unless it's that kind of game. In Ravenloft, for example, the Powers Checks actually do make fellow PCs the highest order of sin.

There's a column for 'betrayal of a Good NPC'. And then a more severe column of 'betrayal of a PC or Innocent.'

Even Ravenloft agrees: Thou Shalt Not Screw Over Thy Fellow PCs.

Segev

2014-06-22, 02:17 PM

Again, it depends on whether the players as a group are okay with this kind of behavior or not. If they're cool with it - whether they know of any particular instance of it OOC or not - then it's fine. Deal with the consequences as they arise. If the players at the table are (or would be) annoyed out-of-character, then it's not cool. You need to talk to everybody about it, and see if it can be made cool with them, or if it needs to stop. Some character types just aren't suited for some groups.

Curmudgeon

2014-06-22, 04:08 PM

Lets say that you are a player, and join a group of relative newbies. While their library is limited, they are willing to allow most anything as long as you bring the book its in and let the other members of the group read and possibly use it. The book you're bringing to the table? Complete Warrior. The class you're going into out of that book? Frenzied Berserker. You play your character as true to the mechanics and fluff as possible. After the first significant combat encounter, you stuff your axe in the back of the cleric's skull because you're still Frenzied after the end of it and failed your Will save, to the surprise of everyone at the table but you (DM included).
If everyone is surprised, it's on them. They all had the option to read about the Frenzied Berserker, and the DM had the responsibility to do so. You can't run a game if you don't know the rules everyone is using, so the DM needs to know the FB rules. And by the time adventurers get to be moderately experienced (level 7 is the minimum for anyone to become a Frenzied Berserker), they ought to be savvy enough to know about a lot of adventuring archetypes (i.e., players should be familiar with a bunch of classes) and know to ask strangers questions about how they could contribute before that band of PCs invites a newcomer to join them.

I'm afraid I don't think this example is particularly helpful. If someone is playing a Kender then a propensity for indiscriminate theft is written into the rulebooks, just as the FB's Frenzy ability is. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

aleucard

2014-06-22, 07:41 PM

If everyone is surprised, it's on them. They all had the option to read about the Frenzied Berserker, and the DM had the responsibility to do so. You can't run a game if you don't know the rules everyone is using, so the DM needs to know the FB rules. And by the time adventurers get to be moderately experienced (level 7 is the minimum for anyone to become a Frenzied Berserker), they ought to be savvy enough to know about a lot of adventuring archetypes (i.e., players should be familiar with a bunch of classes) and know to ask strangers questions about how they could contribute before that band of PCs invites a newcomer to join them.

I'm afraid I don't think this example is particularly helpful. If someone is playing a Kender then a propensity for indiscriminate theft is written into the rulebooks, just as the FB's Frenzy ability is. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

There are four problems with this. One, there is an unwritten Gentleman's Agreement in play at all times, even when the people in the party aren't aware of it. For the VAST majority of people, especially newbies, PVP-Off is part of that agreement when you come to the table expecting to be part of an adventuring party. They may not even know that the game is playable with PVP on, despite how logically obvious that is. This is thanks to them not thinking about it in the lens of a Cooperative game like DnD is at its core (it's hardwired into the damn Challenge Rating system, of course it's coop). This of course changes the moment they become experienced or get surprised, but since the group in question has gone through neither until this point, that avenue is blocked.

Two, it takes very little comprehension of the rules to understand that the first few levels are glorified rocket tag, and thus have the survivability of EVERYONE be uncomfortably close to paper-thin, not to mention how hard it is to get into the, ahem, 'fun stuff' at low level and make it actually make sense. Having the party start at high enough level where FB can be brought into play is nowhere near as much of an outlier as you think.

Three, you're assuming a level of system mastery that brings the people involved beyond beginner/greenhorn, which is what this argument is about. Not everyone is capable of understanding all the rules of DnD at first blush.

Four (and final), you don't seem to understand the spirit in which this argument was made. I'll attempt to give you the TL;DR version. If you read the previous post, some of this may look familiar.

Not all groups are even aware of the possibility of 3.5 PVP, and the vast majority of the groups that are actively despise doing it in campaigns where it's not explicitly allowed. This is a Coop Game from the foundations on up, don't blame people for being irritated that that gets s#@% on by someone pulling a backstabber out of their unmentionables.

We are not saying that PVP is a bad thing. What we are saying is that PVP without the consent of the group (preferably, by way of the campaign being marked as PVP-On from the onset) is at best ill-advised, and more often than not invokes words like trolling, munchkinry, and treason when employed. The player is under obligation to notify the party if they're possibly going to have issues with the party in character, whether that be because of a Paladin in a murderhobo party, a FB in almost any party, a Kinder-style thief in almost any party save Evil, or any number of, er, 'combative' character options. If the rest of the party doesn't want to deal with having to watch for bullsh#$ from their party members, then be ready to make a different character. It's not the other players' or the DM's fault if you bring a PVP-On character to the group without advance warning.

Angelalex242

2014-06-22, 10:33 PM

Actually, I was just at a gaming convention (PolyCon, to be precise) where this exact situation came up.

The thief of the Pathfinder party, (thief he indeed was, not a rogue) (It was the Carrion Hill module) had a habit of taking extra loot for himself. I was playing a dual wield fighter using a long and short sword combo, with focus and specialization in longsword. Level 7 party, mind you. The player even said 'I'm Chaotic Neutral, I have NO LOYALTY TO THE PARTY!'

When the thief steals a bag of gold, I didn't say anything. When he palmed a book, I didn't say anything.

When he tried to palm a +1 Aberration Bane Mythril Longsword, I screamed bloody murder. He had exceeded his jackass quota. Even though he was very likely right about us being too far away to see him take a weapon in dim lighting that was rightfully mine (mostly human party, he was the only elf), the GM sided with me and said he couldn't successfully hide the longsword, and had to hand it over.

Odd Antecdote:This was round 2 of the Pathfinder tournament. Everyone got scores on how well they did. The thief's player got 11/12, losing a point on RP for being unnecessarily adversarial about the sword. That was still enough for him to advance to round 3.