Player is angry over being ratted out

[Vectros]

I'll start by saying, if you look through my post history, the player in question is the same one that complained of railroading, and has made other complaints I wasn't sure if they were valid.

5 players total:
DM-me
Player A-Rogue
Player B-Druid
Player C-Paladin
Player D-Sorcerer

So the situation:Group is investigating an undead resurgence. Follow undead footprints that lead to a forest, with a cabin just outside. In the cabin, Player A finds a chest with a couple jewels, while player B pulls a candle above the fireplace which reveals a secret basement entrance. I described the cabin like this, word for word:

The wood creaks as you swing the door open. A rather typical looking cabin, it appears to have two rooms; a small bedroom to the left, and a main room complete with a kitchen, a bookshelf, and a small fireplace. Several candles are sitting on windows sills.

Player A finds the chest after inquiring if there's anything else in the room, so I threw him a bone so to speak and said there's a small chest with jewels. The group goes into the basement, discover a couple children, who tell them their mother had them move here because the city would soon be in danger.

They leave the cabin, and the mother comes. After some social stuff, she reveals plot information on the bad guy and how she's blackmailed. Player A has pretty much made a friend of her at this point and wants to help her. Party is about to move on; players A mentions that a Necromancer seems to have snuck in previous and stolen from the chest.

Player B rats out player A (player A's character had insulted player B's character just prior) and informs her the chest was broken into by player A, who pursuades her otherwise. He uses entangle and wants to force him to give the jewels back.

At this point, all hell seems to break loose as PLAYERS instead of CHARACTERS are arguing. Player A believes that Player B shouldn't have even known he was doing the action, (at this point, I will say, player B *DID* specifically say after opening the door, "whats in the chest?" Player A replies "jewels"), Player A thinks player B is just being a jackass. Player A thinks its out of character, and that Player C, the Paladin, should be the one ratting him out-but that he never mentioned he'd seen anything.

Just so you guys know, Player C is...quiet. Doesn't do a lot of talking/roleplaying, he's more in it for the combat. In character, Player C says he saw nothing.

Player A and B really start arguing. I step in and declare that, based on the description of the cabin and how I'd imagined it (and I didn't say it at the time, but to further my point Player A never said he was doing it stealthily), Player B would have noticed; player C SHOULD have been in the cabin and noticed as well, despite telling the NPC he saw nothing. Player A argues since he never stated he followed into the cabin, that Player C shouldn't even have been in there; Player C didn't even do anything while we were in the basement!

Generally, I assume that if a player says "I open the door and enter" and no one else says anything, I assume they follow along, since they tend to do this. If a player wants to specifically hang back, look at something, etc, they must say it. This was my ruling. Player A essentially Ragequit for the day, saying "Fine, here are your damn jewels, now lets move the **** on!" He then logged off (this is on Roll20/Discord).

Talking to Player A on Steam afterwards, he feels that Player B in every game we've played (having been in 3 campaigns or so prior to this together, all 3 of us as well as player D) just plays the same character; himself, and his own personality. I agree in most cases player B does this, but there are a couple characters I have disagreed on, including the current one.

I think I've said a lot. I'd like input on what you guys think. Who's right? Who's wrong? I'm currently talking to each player seperately to see who they have issue with; trying to see what common issue there is. For example if player B and player C believe player A complains too much and draws out sessions, I will tell player A later that the group feels he does this too much and needs to stop.

Is this a good way to handle it, and any other advice you guys have?

[jaappleton]

Did Player B ever see a chest? Did Player B ever see Player A interact with a chest?

If the answer is no, Player B is wrong.

If the character of Player A told people of the chest, then Player B is correct.

However, whats in question is that Player A mentioned the contents... Was it in-character, or a player saying something to a player (Not character to character).

[BurgerBeast]

You know what is correct, here. Do what is right.

I realize that this seems like strange advice, but it's the best advice you're going to get. If it was me, I would boot the guy who stole the jewels and never play with him again. But that's me. And I don't have the same context that you have. In this case, your judgment is going to be better than mine.

If it helps, the way you imagined things is the way it happened. You may be flexible about whether you're willing to go back and just (edit: adjust), but the DM's imagination has to be the true one or else the game falls apart quickly. You can come up with ways to improve the players' ability to see what you see, so to speak, but you need your envisioned context to be the true context in order to rule accurately.

[GPS]

Honestly, I've sat back and observed a thousand drama threads, and I know that no one's actually going to tell you what to do. That's kind of part of being in an RP game, you have to make decisions on your own, and this thread is just going to be a long list of people telling you that in different ways, or not reading the OP fully.

However, you asked, so to respect your wishes I'm telling you exactly what to do. We already know which player is wrong and which one is right. Tell player A that he's being a jackass, that player B saw the jewels because you said so. Remind player A that while B might have been bad at RP in the past, he's definitely making improvement in your eyes. Tell him that player C wanted none of their little argument, and to lay off of him. That's advice, but it's also a set of direct instructions. Vague sage isn't really my style, so pardon if I'm come off as abrasive. Just trying to give that answer you wanted.

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-character snitching. Don't snitch, it never ends well.

[AttilatheYeon]

Just keep saying "snitches get stitches!" 😉

[Vectros]

Did Player B ever see a chest? Did Player B ever see Player A interact with a chest?

If the answer is no, Player B is wrong.

If the character of Player A told people of the chest, then Player B is correct.

However, whats in question is that Player A mentioned the contents... Was it in-character, or a player saying something to a player (Not character to character).

Player B never specified "I look around the room"; however, given the description, and as I imagined it, spotting the chest wouldn't be hard-no check required or anything. In my mind, opening said chest without attempting to do it stealthily would be noticed by any and all characters in the room...which was everyone.


Honestly, I've sat back and observed a thousand drama threads, and I know that no one's actually going to tell you what to do. That's kind of part of being in an RP game, you have to make decisions on your own, and this thread is just going to be a long list of people telling you that in different ways, or not reading the OP fully.

However, you asked, so to respect your wishes I'm telling you exactly what to do. We already know which player is wrong and which one is right. Tell player A that he's being a jackass, that player B saw the jewels because you said so. Remind player A that while B might have been bad at RP in the past, he's definitely making improvement in your eyes. Tell him that player C wanted none of their little argument, and to lay off of him. That's advice, but it's also a set of direct instructions. Vague sage isn't really my style, so pardon if I'm come off as abrasive. Just trying to give that answer you wanted.

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-character snitching. Don't snitch, it never ends well.

To clarify and correct slightly, I never said "Player B saw the jewels"; rather, I'd assume he saw the chest containing them. Player A (In character) said to player B, when asked, that he found jewels, which is how he was able to snitch. You don't really come off as abrasive, it's all good. I want to hear whatever everyone else is thinking. Really what I'm doing...is I want to make sure I'm not biased for any one player, so what better way to than to show the situation to complete strangers? Everyone here is unbiased, so I can ensure I'm getting a fair judgement on the situation.

[Arkhios]

Player B never specified "I look around the room"; however, given the description, and as I imagined it, spotting the chest wouldn't be hard-no check required or anything. In my mind, opening said chest without attempting to do it stealthily would be noticed by any and all characters in the room...which was everyone.

To clarify and correct slightly, I never said "Player B saw the jewels"; rather, I'd assume he saw the chest containing them. Player A (In character) said to player B, when asked, that he found jewels, which is how he was able to snitch. You don't really come off as abrasive, it's all good. I want to hear whatever everyone else is thinking. Really what I'm doing...is I want to make sure I'm not biased for any one player, so what better way to than to show the situation to complete strangers? Everyone here is unbiased, so I can ensure I'm getting a fair judgement on the situation.

I was about to say that player A is wrong, but actually... having seen this clarification, I'm not so sure anymore. Sure, Player B might have known that there was A) a chest and B) jewels in a chest, according to what Player A said about the contents earlier. But Player Character B might've not necessarily seen Player Character A taking anything from the chest, right? In that case, ratting out Player A for stealing the jewels would be based on player knowledge, not character knowledge. Unless, of course you'd like that Player A had specifically mentioned he'd take the jewels stealthily. If not, then there's a chance that Player Character B might have noticed the act.

[blurneko]

Its a small cabin. I would definitely say everyone would know about the jewels. Even not, it is quite easy to deduce give that your whole party knows that there isn't a necromancer.

But this isn't the problem and you know it. The real problem is A wants to be a lying thief and B doesn't like that. This is exactly the reason why everyone says session 0 is very important to players to discuss their characters and expectations of each other. If A want to play characters with such different ideals, they should have told each other from the beginning and realise that conflicts would happen.

[MrMcBobb]

Sure, Player B might have known that there was A) a chest and B) jewels in a chest, according to what Player A said about the contents earlier. But Player Character B might've not necessarily seen Player Character A taking anything from the chest, right? In that case, ratting out Player A for stealing the jewels would be based on player knowledge, not character knowledge.

Both characters know that there is a chest in the room and that it contains jewels. Only one character interacted with the chest and when the NPC inquires about it later there are no jewels. Character A is claiming a necromancer stole them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Character A is lying.

The speed at which B rats on A is a bit concerning though. If it were me I'd have confronted A about the theft out of earshot of the NPC (my characters almost always have "message" cantrip, so probably have used that) and said that he needs to give the jewels back. I'm still on Player/Character B's side in this though. It bugs me that people play sociopathic cleptos all the time in D&D, I'm guilty of doing it myself but I cut down where possible.

[Mhl7]

What actually happened is pointless. The two players have a problem with each other. Just tell them to get over it.

Also player B ratting player A out and casting Entagle on him is the worst possible behavior for a player, because PvP is bad (see tons of other threads in this forum).

Once everybody is on board and agree to stop the whining you can come up with whatever solution you want for the in character situation. Before then, there is no way an in game ruling can settle the issue between two Players.

[Addaran]

It's pretty clear that player B should have seen or guessed that player A took the jewels. How would he even knows that someone stole something from the box...

While player A's reaction seems extreme, i can understand his frustration. If he's playing a rogue, it's possible it's cause he wants to steal stuff/be greedy. It's pretty annoying when your teammates don't let you do "your stuff". I'm not talking about keeping stuff from the party or stealing them, but if he wants to steal from NPC and share the loot with the party, he should be allowed.

Imagine if you build a social character, spend resources to be good at diplomacy but every time you try to talk to something, the barbarian and the fighter just insult then attack the newcomer.

[Lye]

It kinda seems like only half the story is here to me.

With the players I run with if someone snitched on another player like that, I'd be adjudicating a TPK.

It would all be in character and no one would hold a gurdge, but there would be PC blood all of that lady and her orphans.

Edit: The cabin would probably be burned to the ground too.

[Vectros]

It kinda seems like only half the story is here to me.

With the players I run with if someone snitched on another player like that, I'd be adjudicating a TPK.

It would all be in character and no one would hold a gurdge, but there would be PC blood all of that lady and her orphans.

Edit: The cabin would probably be burned to the ground too.

Well, I didn't expand on every single detail that happened, but I did give everything relevant to the issue. Do you want me to post all the details of the little cabin adventure?

Also I'm curious, why would you look for a TPK?


While player A's reaction seems extreme, i can understand his frustration. If he's playing a rogue, it's possible it's cause he wants to steal stuff/be greedy. It's pretty annoying when your teammates don't let you do "your stuff". I'm not talking about keeping stuff from the party or stealing them, but if he wants to steal from NPC and share the loot with the party, he should be allowed.

The more I think about what he said when I talked to him afterwards on Steam, the less I think it's really this particular character/session, and more that he just doesn't like player B's style of play. By his own words, he believes player B always plays the same character, an extension of his own personality, and he is trying to troll.


What actually happened is pointless. The two players have a problem with each other. Just tell them to get over it.

Also player B ratting player A out and casting Entagle on him is the worst possible behavior for a player, because PvP is bad (see tons of other threads in this forum).

I think I am coming to this conclusion myself. I have seen the PvP topics...I'm not 100% against players having a bit of a scuffle, so long as they don't try to outright murder. We had character disagreements in a session several months back that gave us one of the best moments of the campaign.


The speed at which B rats on A is a bit concerning though. If it were me I'd have confronted A about the theft out of earshot of the NPC (my characters almost always have "message" cantrip, so probably have used that) and said that he needs to give the jewels back. I'm still on Player/Character B's side in this though.


But this isn't the problem and you know it. The real problem is A wants to be a lying thief and B doesn't like that.

Well, to be honest I don't think his character would have ratted him out at all, had character A not insulted him 2 minutes prior; character A made character B look really bad, so he was returning the favor.

[Lye]

Also I'm curious, why would you look for a TPK?



Because my players would have killed each other.:smallbiggrin:

[GorogIrongut]

Well, to be honest I don't think his character would have ratted him out at all, had character A not insulted him 2 minutes prior; character A made character B look really bad, so he was returning the favor.

1. All character would have known. A wasn't being stealthy. There weren't characters hugely distracted doing something engrossing. To top it all off, A vocalized his theft to the rest of the party. No chance of EVERYONE not knowing.
2. Due to the above quote, which highlights the most important piece of information, we now know that A got what he had coming to him. He started the fight and B finished it, quite nicely. Player A can either recognize his faults and make amends... or he can flounce off in a big huff like the juvenile he's acting like. You don't pick fights without expecting to get hit in return.

The fact that he keeps coming back to the argument of how he doesn't like how B roleplays his characters is telling. We all like to rpg for different reasons. B might like being the same character. He might not. A however is reading into his actions/gameplay so he can nitpick and find fault. He's being the proverbial girlfriend who expects you to be able to read minds and then gets in a huff when you don't.

The correct answer is no longer viable because you're too far away from when it occurred. You should have all had a good chuckle at his expense and told him not to pick a fight if he's unwilling to take a hit. Quick. Glossed over. And hopefully he learned to be less of a shmuck.
Now you've got to have words and talk things out. It will be tedious.

[Fishyninja]

On a slightly similar note and please tell me if this a Hijack (not my intention). I have two other players in a game and they are always at odds (in character) when it comes to fighting creatues.
One always want's to let the creatures we attack go (if they are single creatures {also regadless of what they are}) while the other character is in the "It can't be allowed to live for the greater good argument". Now the players do not get into arguements about this, it's the characters but it seems we spend half of sessions getting into ethics debates.

[Vectros]

I'd say in your case, if the party as a whole is fine with it, then don't change it. If some members don't like it, ask them both to cut back a bit so it doesn't take so long.

[Fishyninja]

I'd say in your case, if the party as a whole is fine with it, then don't change it. If some members don't like it, ask them both to cut back a bit so it doesn't take so long.

It's hard to tell the two players engaging int the 'deabtes' seem to be enjoying it, our warlock is like your paladin, he is quiet and prefers the combat. So it comes down to me, now do not get me wrong, I love the RP that comes out for it but it seems to happen with at least 60% of our encounters.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd like to know more about how Player A humiliated Player B in game please. It sounds relevant, at least a little.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think gorogonirongut's observation matches mine, but I am going to take it one step further:

How badly do you want to keep Player A at your table?
How badly do you want to keep Player B at your table?

What have you done to get them both to sit down and talk to each other to find a way to reach an accord?

Here's the deal: D&D as a game model has always been built on a team with mixed skills doing (stuff) on an adventure. If these two cannot agree to an accord, there isn't a team.

[Vectros]

I'd like to know more about how Player A humiliated Player B in game please. It sounds relevant, at least a little.

I don't recall exactly what was said, but character A acted as if he didn't know character B, and made it sound like character B was filth of some sort. I wouldn't say it was super super insulting, but in the shoes of character B, it wasn't just a lighthearted jab.




How badly do you want to keep Player A at your table?
How badly do you want to keep Player B at your table?

What have you done to get them both to sit down and talk to each other to find a way to reach an accord?

Here's the deal: D&D as a game model has always been built on a team with mixed skills doing (stuff) on an adventure. If these two cannot agree to an accord, there isn't a team.


I want to keep them both at the table, and don't want to act rashly. I'd rather give out a couple warnings before kicking or anything, which is what I plan to do. Still waiting to talk to one member of the group of how they feel about other members, then I'm going to to tell each of them individually if there's anything the group doesn't like about it. I'll probably end up having the 2 talk while I mediate, to make an understanding of what one considers crossing the line, etc. Though for the current case, I'm leaning in favor of player B.

[KorvinStarmast]

I want to keep them both at the table, and don't want to act rashly. I'd rather give out a couple warnings before kicking or anything, which is what I plan to do. Still waiting to talk to one member of the group of how they feel about other members, then I'm going to to tell each of them individually if there's anything the group doesn't like about it. I'll probably end up having the 2 talk while I mediate, to make an understanding of what one considers crossing the line, etc. Though for the current case, I'm leaning in favor of player B.
I think your instincts are good. Best wishes on restoring harmony at the table.

[Hathorym]

I'm a DM and this is how I would approach this situation at my table.

Player A told Player B that there were jewels in the chest. He didn't specify it was out of character, therefore, it stands.

It's a game, it has no real life consequence, and acting like a child and alienating others in the group for something that has been ruled to have happened in game is unacceptable. Causing the game to completely stop for that behavior is unacceptable.

Bottom line for my tables is that the point is to have fun. If someone is so disrespectful to me or another player that they are infringing on our fun and making immersion improbable, then dire step are required.

Unless he's ready to apologize for his personally caused drama, his rage quitting, and his all around poor and immature behavior, he would not be welcomed back.

Further, should he be self aware enough to apologize, it would be made patently clear that that behavior is completely unacceptable at my table and that there will be no more chances. Period.

[Vogonjeltz]

Generally, I assume that if a player says "I open the door and enter" and no one else says anything, I assume they follow along, since they tend to do this.

Is this a good way to handle it, and any other advice you guys have?

I think you may have learned a good lesson about not assuming things.

Advice: Going forward, actually find out where the characters are, and what they are doing.

If no one says anything, they aren't doing anything, make no assumptions otherwise.

If player B was searching, and found the secret entrance at the time that player A was examining the chest, player B would not have noticed anything, being otherwise distracted by the Search action.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I've seen enough players, actually too many players, who said "I'm playing a Rogue" when they actually meant "I'm playing a kleptomaniac fun-ruining jerk-wipe!" so I'm strongly biased against player A. And apparently he's not a very good kleptomaniac because he can't be bothered with silly details like skill rolls for Stealth or Sleight of Hand. Also, his "necromancer" fib was terminally lame so he's lousy at Deception, too. Worst Rogue ever. Also, black card him for trying to change the subject and making player B's role playing ability the issue. Nope, that's not the issue. Personal foul; player B gets a free kick.

Player A needs to straighten up and quit screwing around. Also, players B, C, and D should probably tie him and go through his gear to see what else he's stolen, just in case.

[Decstarr]

While there seems to be a consensus in terms of bad player behavior - and I totally agree with that! - I am struggling with the character behavior here. I mean, if they only just met the woman, what possible reason does B have to snitch on A? Even he's angry at him for being insulted, they are still - supposedly - a team and telling someone else that your teammate stole from them just HAS to result in negative consequences. So either the character isn't too smart or just acting in a harmful way. If he's disagreeing with the stealing, he could still just talk to PC A afterwards and convince him to give the jewels back, I don't see any reason whatsoever to create a conflict right in the face of a seemingly poor NPC - a conflict that in some scenarios might very well end with the untimely demise of said NPC. So in my mind the player needs a hell lot of a better argument than "he's always playing the same character *whine whine*" for snitching out his teammate and should be made aware of that. In no way do I condone player A's general behavior but at the same time, I think player B is also at fault here for if he's having that much trouble with A, why hasn't this been addressed and dealt with earlier?

I have honestly contemplated in-game events in cases like this. Something that puts the fear into the characters and players as well. Some natural disaster that strikes and kills a bunch of beloved NPCs or something like that. As DMs, we reward great behavior in-game, so why not also punish bad behavior in-game? If the players like their characters, at one point they will realize that anytime they act like ***** something bad happens and might eventually stop it.

[Malifice]

I'll start by saying, if you look through my post history, the player in question is the same one that complained of railroading, and has made other complaints I wasn't sure if they were valid.

5 players total:
DM-me
Player A-Rogue
Player B-Druid
Player C-Paladin
Player D-Sorcerer

So the situation:Group is investigating an undead resurgence. Follow undead footprints that lead to a forest, with a cabin just outside. In the cabin, Player A finds a chest with a couple jewels, while player B pulls a candle above the fireplace which reveals a secret basement entrance. I described the cabin like this, word for word:

The wood creaks as you swing the door open. A rather typical looking cabin, it appears to have two rooms; a small bedroom to the left, and a main room complete with a kitchen, a bookshelf, and a small fireplace. Several candles are sitting on windows sills.

Player A finds the chest after inquiring if there's anything else in the room, so I threw him a bone so to speak and said there's a small chest with jewels. The group goes into the basement, discover a couple children, who tell them their mother had them move here because the city would soon be in danger.

They leave the cabin, and the mother comes. After some social stuff, she reveals plot information on the bad guy and how she's blackmailed. Player A has pretty much made a friend of her at this point and wants to help her. Party is about to move on; players A mentions that a Necromancer seems to have snuck in previous and stolen from the chest.

Player B rats out player A (player A's character had insulted player B's character just prior) and informs her the chest was broken into by player A, who pursuades her otherwise. He uses entangle and wants to force him to give the jewels back.

At this point, all hell seems to break loose as PLAYERS instead of CHARACTERS are arguing. Player A believes that Player B shouldn't have even known he was doing the action, (at this point, I will say, player B *DID* specifically say after opening the door, "whats in the chest?" Player A replies "jewels"), Player A thinks player B is just being a jackass. Player A thinks its out of character, and that Player C, the Paladin, should be the one ratting him out-but that he never mentioned he'd seen anything.

Just so you guys know, Player C is...quiet. Doesn't do a lot of talking/roleplaying, he's more in it for the combat. In character, Player C says he saw nothing.

Player A and B really start arguing. I step in and declare that, based on the description of the cabin and how I'd imagined it (and I didn't say it at the time, but to further my point Player A never said he was doing it stealthily), Player B would have noticed; player C SHOULD have been in the cabin and noticed as well, despite telling the NPC he saw nothing. Player A argues since he never stated he followed into the cabin, that Player C shouldn't even have been in there; Player C didn't even do anything while we were in the basement!

Generally, I assume that if a player says "I open the door and enter" and no one else says anything, I assume they follow along, since they tend to do this. If a player wants to specifically hang back, look at something, etc, they must say it. This was my ruling. Player A essentially Ragequit for the day, saying "Fine, here are your damn jewels, now lets move the **** on!" He then logged off (this is on Roll20/Discord).

Talking to Player A on Steam afterwards, he feels that Player B in every game we've played (having been in 3 campaigns or so prior to this together, all 3 of us as well as player D) just plays the same character; himself, and his own personality. I agree in most cases player B does this, but there are a couple characters I have disagreed on, including the current one.

I think I've said a lot. I'd like input on what you guys think. Who's right? Who's wrong? I'm currently talking to each player seperately to see who they have issue with; trying to see what common issue there is. For example if player B and player C believe player A complains too much and draws out sessions, I will tell player A later that the group feels he does this too much and needs to stop.

Is this a good way to handle it, and any other advice you guys have?

Your job as DM is to instantly shut this behaviour down. In particular players arguing with each other not in character.

The solution:

Character B was downstairs wasnt he? He was in the basement while Character A was looting?

In that case, he clearly shouldnt have known anything was up. You should have smacked him down the instant he opened his mouth with 'You were downstairs; you didnt see a thing'.

Of course you should have also immediately called for a Charisma (Deception) check from player A to represent his lie about the Necromancer, which would have been opposed by both Character B and the NPC's passive Wisdom (Insight) scores.

Also: Characters C and D were present in the room. Its fair to assume they saw Character A steal the stuff. If this is in doubt, have A make an opposed Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check vs C and D's passive Wisdom (Perception) scores.

Once that's all done, change Character A's alignment to at least CN (if it isnt already) and get on with the game.

[RickAllison]

Your job as DM is to instantly shut this behaviour down. In particular players arguing with each other not in character.

The solution:

Character B was downstairs wasnt he? He was in the basement while Character A was looting?

In that case, he clearly shouldnt have known anything was up. You should have smacked him down the instant he opened his mouth with 'You were downstairs; you didnt see a thing'.

Of course you should have also immediately called for a Charisma (Deception) check from player A to represent his lie about the Necromancer, which would have been opposed by both Character B and the NPC's passive Wisdom (Insight) scores.

Also: Characters C and D were present in the room. Its fair to assume they saw Character A steal the stuff. If this is in doubt, have A make an opposed Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check vs C and D's passive Wisdom (Perception) scores.

Once that's all done, change Character A's alignment to at least CN (if it isnt already) and get on with the game.

I think you missed something. A told B that the chest was filled with jewels and didn't specify that said statement was out of character, which means that B has been made aware of the possibly valuable contents of the chest. A then spun the tale about the necromancer. Meaning that a Deception roll is not necessarily needed because B doesn't care about making an Insight check as A already stated it was filled with valuables.

Insight is for analyzing a person's behavior to catch a glimpse of their true intentions even when they may appear to be clean. I don't have to roll Insight to tell that Little Red Riding Hood did eat the cookies I baked when I literally watched her eat it. I know it is a lie. B knew that A was lying because A already divulged the contents of the chest meaning they were there. B knows A was lying either about it being full of jewels or that a necromancer stole them. Banking on the former being the lie seems far more reasonable in-character.

And if you are going to force the character's alignment, it should be CE. CN is for people who disregard rules and are in a middle ground between being selfish and selfless (helps others if it doesn't hurt them, works toward a specific ideal, etc.) while CE is for those who disregard rules for purely selfish interests. Maybe he is CN if he was stealing the gems to use for the party or to solve a crisis, but without further information this is stolen for personal use.

[Dr.Samurai]

Your job as DM is to instantly shut this behaviour down.
This is spot on.

It seems that the motivation for most of this is player vs player, and not really in character.

It seems that Player B betrayed the trust of Player A, because Player A told B the truth about the contents of the chest. He didn't hide it from Player B, so it seems like he didn't expect this sort of response.

I think, the moment the snitching happened the game should have paused. Because that in and of itself is disruptive and pits the players and characters against each other.

The entanglement should never have been allowed. And please don't take that personally. There are many DMs that don't mind a little PvP. But I'm strongly against it, because of stuff like this. It becomes difficult to determine how much of this is in game and how much of it is out of game. By allowing these actions, you allow the players to try and sort things out IC, when it's really a situation that exists OOC.

In truth, I think player B is the offensive one here because of the actions he took in game. That's not to say that the underlying BS behind all of this is his fault, but I don't blame Player A for rage-quitting. I'd be pissed as well. I'd handle it differently (read: directly and decisively lol), but I get his frustration.

Back to the original point... sometimes as a DM you have to refrain from letting things "play out". Interrupt the game, full stop. Pause, put your hands out and say "Whoa, whoa, whoa everyone! Hang on. What are you doing? Why? This is disruptive. Let's all hash this out for a second before we continue."

Don't think that as a DM, you can handle everything in game through some clever and masterful dungeon mastering. Because you can't address the OOC frustrations of the players through the game. That's why you got more information over Steam than you did letting the player cast Entangle on his teammate.

[rollingForInit]

While there seems to be a consensus in terms of bad player behavior - and I totally agree with that! - I am struggling with the character behavior here. I mean, if they only just met the woman, what possible reason does B have to snitch on A? Even he's angry at him for being insulted, they are still - supposedly - a team and telling someone else that your teammate stole from them just HAS to result in negative consequences.

It could be that Character B wants to get A into trouble, especially if this sort of things happens often. If Character A regularly does stupid stuff that annoys the other characters. And of course, if it annoys the other players that probably carries over as well.

[thepsyker]

It could be that Character B wants to get A into trouble, especially if this sort of things happens often. If Character A regularly does stupid stuff that annoys the other characters. And of course, if it annoys the other players that probably carries over as well.

It could also be that Player/Character B has some inexplicable moral/ethical objection to robbing commoners with small children of chestfulls of valuables and wasn't willing to metagame/break character by ignoring that objection just because the thief in question was a pc.

[Vectros]

While there seems to be a consensus in terms of bad player behavior - and I totally agree with that! - I am struggling with the character behavior here. I mean, if they only just met the woman, what possible reason does B have to snitch on A? Even he's angry at him for being insulted, they are still - supposedly - a team and telling someone else that your teammate stole from them just HAS to result in negative consequences. So either the character isn't too smart or just acting in a harmful way. If he's disagreeing with the stealing, he could still just talk to PC A afterwards and convince him to give the jewels back, I don't see any reason whatsoever to create a conflict right in the face of a seemingly poor NPC - a conflict that in some scenarios might very well end with the untimely demise of said NPC. So in my mind the player needs a hell lot of a better argument than "he's always playing the same character *whine whine*" for snitching out his teammate and should be made aware of that. In no way do I condone player A's general behavior but at the same time, I think player B is also at fault here for if he's having that much trouble with A, why hasn't this been addressed and dealt with earlier?

I have honestly contemplated in-game events in cases like this. Something that puts the fear into the characters and players as well. Some natural disaster that strikes and kills a bunch of beloved NPCs or something like that. As DMs, we reward great behavior in-game, so why not also punish bad behavior in-game? If the players like their characters, at one point they will realize that anytime they act like ***** something bad happens and might eventually stop it.

Well, to give a little more background, it's almost like Suicide Squad. The Paladin was ordered to get some help with the rising Necromancy threat, because it's simply too big to handle, gathering an array of skills that could be useful in tracking down whoever is behind all of it. This was actually an idea thrown to me by Player A before this story started and I thought it sounded cool. Every character is tied to Character C in one way or another-character A will have various charges against him dropped once he helps with the investigation, for example. So while they are a team it's not meant to be the most close knit, and I'd expect if one insults another they'd probably react as player B did...though I'm not going to allow for killing, I made it clear at the beginning they have to work together as a whole with this.

Also I think you might be mixing player A and B a bit...player B is the one accused of playing the same character repeatedly, which I don't think should be considered an issue anyways-you should be able to roleplay who you want.

Not sure how good an idea punishing in game is...unless it's something I deem as just "in character" jackassary, but if it's the player themselves I want to talk to them instead.


The solution:

Character B was downstairs wasnt he? He was in the basement while Character A was looting?

In that case, he clearly shouldnt have known anything was up. You should have smacked him down the instant he opened his mouth with 'You were downstairs; you didnt see a thing'.

Of course you should have also immediately called for a Charisma (Deception) check from player A to represent his lie about the Necromancer, which would have been opposed by both Character B and the NPC's passive Wisdom (Insight) scores.

Also: Characters C and D were present in the room. Its fair to assume they saw Character A steal the stuff. If this is in doubt, have A make an opposed Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check vs C and D's passive Wisdom (Perception) scores.

Once that's all done, change Character A's alignment to at least CN (if it isnt already) and get on with the game.

He wasn't downstairs, he simply pulled the candle; at about the same time, player A discovers a chest, searches for traps, disables traps, opens chest, loots chest...which I think all that would take longer than simply pulling a candle. Now that I think about it, I might even be able to reason during this time player B could have simply watched the entire thing...

I didn't perform the Deception check due to earlier persuasion checks made by player A...he rolled like a 22, so I decided she trusted him pretty well-and she was more concerned with her children who were hidden in the basement anyways, so the jewels weren't a huge deal.

I'll try to remember the sleight of hand check for next time...though again, I assumed since he didn't say he was trying to be sneaky, he was just doing it normally. Which would have easily been heard and noticed.


This is spot on.

It seems that the motivation for most of this is player vs player, and not really in character.

It seems that Player B betrayed the trust of Player A, because Player A told B the truth about the contents of the chest. He didn't hide it from Player B, so it seems like he didn't expect this sort of response.

I think, the moment the snitching happened the game should have paused. Because that in and of itself is disruptive and pits the players and characters against each other.

The entanglement should never have been allowed. And please don't take that personally. There are many DMs that don't mind a little PvP. But I'm strongly against it, because of stuff like this. It becomes difficult to determine how much of this is in game and how much of it is out of game. By allowing these actions, you allow the players to try and sort things out IC, when it's really a situation that exists OOC.

In truth, I think player B is the offensive one here because of the actions he took in game. That's not to say that the underlying BS behind all of this is his fault, but I don't blame Player A for rage-quitting. I'd be pissed as well. I'd handle it differently (read: directly and decisively lol), but I get his frustration.

Back to the original point... sometimes as a DM you have to refrain from letting things "play out". Interrupt the game, full stop. Pause, put your hands out and say "Whoa, whoa, whoa everyone! Hang on. What are you doing? Why? This is disruptive. Let's all hash this out for a second before we continue."

Don't think that as a DM, you can handle everything in game through some clever and masterful dungeon mastering. Because you can't address the OOC frustrations of the players through the game. That's why you got more information over Steam than you did letting the player cast Entangle on his teammate.

Well, like I said previously, we've had a sort of mini pvp happen previously. No attacks were thrown, but 2 characters had disagreements on how to handle a prisoner, and weapons were drawn. it was heated for the characters, but the players were fine. I hadn't yet picked up signals that players were feeling heated when the Entangle got thrown out, so I had let it continue. Though I am seeing the recurring comment here that I should have shut it down earlier and will keep it in mind for future sessions.



It could be that Character B wants to get A into trouble, especially if this sort of things happens often. If Character A regularly does stupid stuff that annoys the other characters. And of course, if it annoys the other players that probably carries over as well.
I'm trying to think back to previous sessions...I know character A has stolen before, but I'm not sure if it was at times the others would have noticed. I don't think in most situations character B would actually mind; this was simply a mini revenge kind of thing. That's also what player B told me when I asked him later.


It could also be that Player/Character B has some inexplicable moral/ethical objection to robbing commoners with small children of chestfulls of valuables and wasn't willing to metagame/break character by ignoring that objection just because the thief in question was a pc.

Possibly...his character is a Firbolg Druid trying to restore the land after accidentally burning down a field; he seems caring, so I could see this as an extension of that personality.

[Blue Lantern]

I'm trying to think back to previous sessions...I know character A has stolen before, but I'm not sure if it was at times the others would have noticed. I don't think in most situations character B would actually mind; this was simply a mini revenge kind of thing. That's also what player B told me when I asked him later.

And Ding, we have the big red light right here.

Normally I would say that both player A and B are somewhat at fault, normally a player being a "thief" and not wanting to share the loot is not something that should happen, on the other hand if the group is ok with that, and from what you wrote it has happened before without hassle, it can be allowed.

But if player B starts a PvP scene that cause a discussion OOC because of an character insult that happened earlier, and from what you describe that does not even seems to be an in-character action (I may be wrong about that) that sounds petty and is not a good sign in his favour.

From what this situation seems from my outside perspective the accusation that player B may be a bit of a troll may not be unfounded after all.

[Unoriginal]

Character A can be pissed off for his theft being revealed, but it should be resolved with a "get over it, and next time try to not get caught stealing if you don't want others to tell your victims". Player A has no legitimate reason to be pissed off.

[Vectros]

And Ding, we have the big red light right here.

Normally I would say that both player A and B are somewhat at fault, normally a player being a "thief" and not wanting to share the loot is not something that should happen, on the other hand if the group is ok with that, and from what you wrote it has happened before without hassle, it can be allowed.

But if player B starts a PvP scene that cause a discussion OOC because of an character insult that happened earlier, and from what you describe that does not even seems to be an in-character action (I may be wrong about that) that sounds petty and is not a good sign in his favour.

From what this situation seems from my outside perspective the accusation that player B may be a bit of a troll may not be unfounded after all.

I'm not sure I follow your logic too well. Yeah, previously the cast was ok with stealing (though again, I'm not sure they've actually witnessed it-I just know he's stolen and don't recall the circumstances)-assuming they did though, it didn't involve an insult. Which wasn't really a petty insult...the kind that might make you go "oooooh" if you were watching...I wish I remembered what was said. It COULD have been worse, but I wouldn't say it was a light one either.

Though it sounds like regardless if character B had reason to rat him out, he shouldn't have pulled out entangle. And I don't think he was trying to PvP, merely keeping him honest and helping the lady. We've had in character heated situations before where weapons got raised, and I didn't really see this any differently.

[Unoriginal]

Entangle might have been needed to prevent the guy from escaping.

[zinycor]

Well if player B wants to play the same character over and over, that's his thing, i don't see what that has to do with anything.

On topic, I believe A is being too sensitive, so what if they rat him out? why would the game stop over something like this? Just play the scene as it makes sense, maybe the woman doesn't even care for the jewels after all.