How do you feel about the act of stealing?

[Pr6i6e6st]

I don't know how many have had this issue, but I've played with people as a player, who just steal EVERYTHING, or at least try to. It can be humorous, for a little while, but after a bit, it can get rediculous, at least with certain people.

I'm all for letting people do what they want and role playing their character to a T, but this is more about those who don't understand how to be a thief with any efficiency.

Example, I played with a guy who would try to "hide" in the packed tavern (he was human), we always pictured him in that cartoony sneaking pose, shuffling between people. This is wrong though isn't it? At least for him to succeed without some other element like fog or darkness or some sort of concealment?

He'd also just try to steal from everyone. He didn't know what he was trying to steal most of the time. He just wanted to steal. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but professional thieves don't just bump a random person hoping to get something out of it. They case their target. Watch, survey. You don't want to get caught just trying to reach into an empty pocket. What if someone else saw you? Now you're going to get your hands cut off for nothing.

He'd steal from his party members. There was a time we got attacked by wolves in the middle of the night, I ended up down making death saving throws, what did he do? STEAL MY BEDROLL!! Lol. Yeah it's kinda funny but at the same time it's like "dude, how would I not notice my bedroll missing? We're in the middle of nowhere, in a big open field, with 5 other people standing around."

Some of this actually falls on the DM I suppose. The DM could have made him do more appropriate checks, or could have not set the DC so easy, factoring in the other circumstances.

I don't know, I just feel like a lot of the times I've played, sneaking and stealing is made to be too easy. The thieves I've played with always acted more like careless street urchins with no skills, who just grab and run, but DMs make it seem like they're some master thief at like 3rd level, able to steal the moustache off your face haha.

What do you guys think about slight of hand and stealth checks and their DC? How do you feel your DM typical handles it? As a DM, what do you do? And what do people think of stealing from party members? I have no qualms with the aforementioned thief and DM. They're good guys, I just feel they forget to handle some situations appropriately, at least from my point of view.

[Eko]

My ruling as a DM is as follows:

Players are only ever "allowed" to steal for two purposes:
1. They know of a specific thing that a specific target has, and they want it. The success/failure of this action has serious and meaningful implications later on.
2. They're just trying to get some gold/stuff for the sake of having gold/stuff. The success/failure of this action does not really matter in the context of the cosmic importance the PCs usually have.

For the former, it's usually involved with the plot/etc, so we RP it and it's more complicated than a simple "DC 15 sleight of hand check". They would need to set something up, have a distraction, etc., depending of course of how difficult stealing the thing would be. A shopkeeper's coin purse would be easier to steal than a king's crown.

For the latter, I just have them roll a sleight of hand check for determining the success they have over some period of time stealing (4-8 hours, ish). If the score is less than some number, I set them up against a platoon of guards, and we go from there. If it's higher, I say "You've managed to escape with X gold, Y silver, and some jewelry (worth Z, they'd need to sell at a fence)".

"Stealing in a busy tavern" or other such activities are not worth your time to roleplay. They're boring and drive the plot nowhere. The method above lets you RP the important bits and still allows room for players to make their living from "stealing". Of course, as a DM, if players keep stealing stuff you'd need to up the DC eventually, as the town would react to this in one way or another.


WRT stealing from party: No. I know some parties have internal conflicts, but at my table it's the party vs. the world.

WRT players that steal *everything*: Ask the player to think about their character. Obviously there is some missing depth. Why is the character stealing? If it's for money, use technique above. If the character likes starting **** for no reason, there's better ways of going about that. Some thing you could try: 1. local thieves guild tries to recruit player, 2. someone he stole from sends a group of thugs to take it back.

[lunaticfringe]

Pretty sure being a klepto is in a few different backgrounds as quirks/flaws. Sounds like perhaps that might be going on.

The cartoon aspect is in your head. Pickpocketing & shoplifting is a lot slicker irl. Mostly Sleight of Hand & Deception & maybe Performance, trying to be stealthy about it just draws suspicion.

Depends on the situation. I use Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Deception as needed. Getting caught and smacked around a bit usually stops the thief for awhile in my experience.

[Pr6i6e6st]

My ruling as a DM is as follows:

Players are only ever "allowed" to steal for two purposes:
1. They know of a specific thing that a specific target has, and they want it. The success/failure of this action has serious and meaningful implications later on.
2. They're just trying to get some gold/stuff for the sake of having gold/stuff. The success/failure of this action does not really matter in the context of the cosmic importance the PCs usually have.

For the former, it's usually involved with the plot/etc, so we RP it and it's more complicated than a simple "DC 15 sleight of hand check". They would need to set something up, have a distraction, etc., depending of course of how difficult stealing the thing would be. A shopkeeper's coin purse would be easier to steal than a king's crown.

For the latter, I just have them roll a sleight of hand check for determining the success they have over some period of time stealing (4-8 hours, ish). If the score is less than some number, I set them up against a platoon of guards, and we go from there. If it's higher, I say "You've managed to escape with X gold, Y silver, and some jewelry (worth Z, they'd need to sell at a fence)".

"Stealing in a busy tavern" or other such activities are not worth your time to roleplay. They're boring and drive the plot nowhere. The method above lets you RP the important bits and still allows room for players to make their living from "stealing". Of course, as a DM, if players keep stealing stuff you'd need to up the DC eventually, as the town would react to this in one way or another.


WRT stealing from party: No. I know some parties have internal conflicts, but at my table it's the party vs. the world.

WRT players that steal *everything*: Ask the player to think about their character. Obviously there is some missing depth. Why is the character stealing? If it's for money, use technique above. If the character likes starting **** for no reason, there's better ways of going about that. Some thing you could try: 1. local thieves guild tries to recruit player, 2. someone he stole from sends a group of thugs to take it back.


So for your second option, basically they suggest they want to steal from randoms for a while, so you ask them how long they want to spend doing all the casing and stuff, and just explain "you managed to steal x amount of stuff over pick pocketing x amount of patrons" maybe throwing in "but one caught you and now the guards are marching your way"?

That sounds more reasonable than what buddy did.

And yeah I don't think party members should steal from each other. Not so much they aren't allowed. There are some situations I could see it being ok like if they get a curse or spend too much time on a plane that gives them a flaw. But for the most part, why screw over party members? They'll probably just leave you to die if you do, if not try to kill you outright. Wouldn't that make a character evil to steal from their party? Neutral to steal from randoms, ok, maybe even chaotic good depending on how they role played it, but stealing from people who you're building trust with, I'd kind of consider evil.

[solidork]

Personally? I hate it. If we're playing a heroic game and you're stealing from random people or our allies just because you can or because you think it's funny, I want your character to be caught and jailed and for you to have to roll a new character.

IDK, I just have an extremely visceral and negative reaction to that kind of behavior because of the people I played with way back in high school. I don't pretend that it's completely reasonable.

[NecessaryWeevil]

The only thing worse than a rogue who steals from the party is a DM who lets them get away with it. Last time I played on Roll20, our Evil rogue (sigh) declares he is Sleight of Hand-ing an entire chest full of coins while we stand around in the same room with nothing to do. The DM has everyone roll perception. Really? It's an entire chest. Full of coins. Either he spends several minutes shoveling coins down his pants or he stuffs the entire chest...er...somewhere. And it's POSSIBLE, let alone likely with my average Wisdom, that I don't notice? Come on.

Fortunately our Lawful Evil wizard was optimized for PVP while I was not. "Time to cut off your hands."

Bizarrely, that Lawful Evil wizard was my Chaotic Good sorceror's closest ally.

[lunaticfringe]

So for your second option, basically they suggest they want to steal from randoms for a while, so you ask them how long they want to spend doing all the casing and stuff, and just explain "you managed to steal x amount of stuff over pick pocketing x amount of patrons" maybe throwing in "but one caught you and now the guards are marching your way"?

That sounds more reasonable than what buddy did.

And yeah I don't think party members should steal from each other. Not so much they aren't allowed. There are some situations I could see it being ok like if they get a curse or spend too much time on a plane that gives them a flaw. But for the most part, why screw over party members? They'll probably just leave you to die if you do, if not try to kill you outright. Wouldn't that make a character evil to steal from their party? Neutral to steal from randoms, ok, maybe even chaotic good depending on how they role played it, but stealing from people who you're building trust with, I'd kind of consider evil.

No with an *. It's a **** move for sure, but not Evil in 90% of cases. I think your flip flopping proves that.

[Pex]

Stealing from the party, never don't you dare, leave the group.

Stealing treasure that was supposed to be party treasure, never don't you dare, leave the group.

Stealing from NPCs we don't know during your downtime, enjoy.

Stealing from NPCs we are purposely trying to be nice to and not as a distraction to steal something from them, never don't you dare, leave the group.

Stealing from NPCs because our plan is to steal something from them, go, go, rah, rah, rah.

Interrupting play so you can separate yourself from the party doing the adventure while you have your own mini-game stealing from NPCs we don't know, knock it the heck off and play the game we're supposed to be playing or leave the group.

[Pr6i6e6st]

No with an *. It's a **** move for sure, but not Evil in 90% of cases. I think your flip flopping proves that.

Eh, I guess. Selfishness is more neutral. But there's bound to be a line there. If you're doing it with purposeful intent to screw someone over, you're leaning pretty hard on evil. Again, this is someone you're putting time and effort into gaining trust, and if you turn around and steal a health potion from a dying party member, that's pretty evil. So I mean, it's more about circumstance I suppose. But you're right, majority of times I've seen its just stealing party members gold or something like that.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

When my player are stealing everything from NPCS, I normally just let them. Most of the time, they'll eventually fail a slight of hand check and be caught. The guards will be informed and the party will have to leave town of face the consequences. If the thief is too skilled for this to work, I wait for them to steal from someone important and then have that important NPC send an invisible stalker after them to steal back their stuff along with any other important magical items the thieving PC has. Normally losing their goodies is enough to show the player that good and bad actions have consequences in my world and they stop doing it.

[Honest Tiefling]

I get the feeling the player wasn't trying to be unseen in the tavern, but unnoticed. Basically social stealth and not look out of place. Else I don't know what has been happening.

I've played with groups with stealing between players, but usually it is agreed upon in the first place between the two players. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it unless all parties involved are alright with it. For instance, someone is unconscious or otherwise unable to fight, so someone 'steals' a magic wand to deal with a very pressing issue. The theft isn't hidden, and in most cases the wand would be returned minus a few charges. But it sure beats dying!

As for NPC stealing...I'm more neutral. Many groups I have played in are outcasts, thieves, and criminals coming together for whatever reason. A bit of pick pocketing of unallied groups seems perfectly fitting. Ensuring failure WOULD happen just seems like a OOC punishment in my eyes, for if a DM doesn't want a player to indulge maybe they should have a talk with them about tone instead of sending a scripted event.

[Pr6i6e6st]

I get the feeling the player wasn't trying to be unseen in the tavern, but unnoticed. Basically social stealth and not look out of place. Else I don't know what has been happening.

I've played with groups with stealing between players, but usually it is agreed upon in the first place between the two players. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it unless all parties involved are alright with it. For instance, someone is unconscious or otherwise unable to fight, so someone 'steals' a magic wand to deal with a very pressing issue. The theft isn't hidden, and in most cases the wand would be returned minus a few charges. But it sure beats dying!

As for NPC stealing...I'm more neutral. Many groups I have played in are outcasts, thieves, and criminals coming together for whatever reason. A bit of pick pocketing of unallied groups seems perfectly fitting. Ensuring failure WOULD happen just seems like a OOC punishment in my eyes, for if a DM doesn't want a player to indulge maybe they should have a talk with them about tone instead of sending a scripted event.

Yeah, no he was talking about staying in shadows, hiding in coat racks and stuff lol. The DM DID point out that stuff wasn't present, and that he'd be noticed if he was crouching behind someone, and went with the "you're just being very non-chalaunt (sp?) about it" kinda thing, but made him roll for everything, which kinda really slowed everything down.

And no, of course never ensure failure. But there should be consequences. If you stole from a peasant who just walked into the bar for a drink, probably best to get moving before he puts two and two together or something like that. It's not that you're punishing them for doing what they do, but there are reactions for every action.

[Lombra]

If you steal during downtime it should be like keeping a business going. Except that if you fail you either get jailed or become notorious in the area (with all the positive and negative sides). I am fine with characters stealing from the party, when the party notices it, the party deals with it. I'm not saying that I encourage that, but I'm not blaming a LE rogue for doing it. (Even if alignment doesn't imply such behaviour, but you get my point)

[Slipperychicken]

Most of the time it's going to be a distraction. I'm not going to waste my time determining if a thief can score a handful of silver from a bar patron, and especially not on the inevitable extended chase scenes or prison breakouts. If he's trying to steal something that actually matters, then fine we can do it, but not if it's going to distract from the parts of the game that I care about.

Stealing from PCs is PvP so I'd disallow it regardless. I don't want to deal with my players fuming about how their imaginary characters are being cheated and robbed.

[JellyPooga]

Stealing from the party, never don't you dare, leave the group.

Yeah, just don't do it.


Stealing treasure that was supposed to be party treasure, never don't you dare, leave the group.

This I disagree with. Finders Keepers and all that. If you find treasure, it's up to you if you're going to share. If there's some kind of party agreement to share all loot, that might be a different matter, but generally speaking, I don't see this as "theft".

[Sirdar]

Stealing from the party, never (unless they want it)!

Stealing, stealing, stealing a car for Moe. Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh insurance fraud today!

[Malifice]

We had a party charter. An actual (real) written and signed party charter. Stealing was punishable by swift execution (unless the party leader elected to simply hack off the thiefs hand), as was acts of treason against the party leader, or any unprovoked attacks against other PCs or cohorts. It contained rules for the division of treasure, and other stuff as well.

They were common back in the day.

If PvP isnt allowed at your table via your groups social contract, then I suggest simply roleplaying it. What would you do if someone you know stole from you (repeatedly)? The answer is self evident I would have thought.

Everyone else in the party stops hanging around with the thief (his character gets booted from your party). The thiefs player either plays alone, or rolls a new character (often at lower level).

It only happens the once.

[Sigreid]

In our group no one really cares if the thief palms an extra gem or something like that. We're also pretty tolerant of stealing from npcs, and have been known to help.

We've not had an issue with stealing from party members. Except one of my rogues that would practice pickpocket unimportant items and give them back saying "you dropped this."

[Malifice]

Someone tell the OP not to play in Dragonlance.

cough Kender cough

[NecroDancer]

Remember even if you didn't see the thief in action you can still use logic to deduce he stole from you.

1. Your party thief is known from kleptomania

2. During a fight you lose certain items after

3. You can't find the items on the bodies of the enemy

4. Logic dictates that the person who stole your stuff must be apart of your party

5. The thief who is known for kleptomania is the obvious suspect.

[JellyPooga]

Remember even if you didn't see the thief in action you can still use logic to deduce he stole from you.

1. Your party thief is known from kleptomania

2. During a fight you lose certain items after

3. You can't find the items on the bodies of the enemy

4. Logic dictates that the person who stole your stuff must be apart of your party

5. The thief who is known for kleptomania is the obvious suspect.

Bah! Blatant stereotyping! :haley:

[Pr6i6e6st]

Someone tell the OP not to play in Dragonlance.

cough Kender cough

Oh god do I want to know? Lol


Remember even if you didn't see the thief in action you can still use logic to deduce he stole from you.

1. Your party thief is known from kleptomania

2. During a fight you lose certain items after

3. You can't find the items on the bodies of the enemy

4. Logic dictates that the person who stole your stuff must be apart of your party

5. The thief who is known for kleptomania is the obvious suspect.

Yeah, problem was the rest of the party was tired of getting slowed down (not really just because of him, but the DM as well, as we must have failed a bunch of perception checks and stuff or something, so we ended up in the woods not knowing what we were supposed to be doing somehow. I don't even know.) so they just kinda pushed it along, not taking his role play seriously, thinking he was OOC saying "I steal X" because he burst into laughter every time, but the DM accepted it. DM kinda accepted a lot of things not considering stuff as OOC. I thought it was understood we would say "my character says" or "my character does".

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, problem was the rest of the party was tired of getting slowed down (not really just because of him, but the DM as well, as we must have failed a bunch of perception checks and stuff or something, so we ended up in the woods not knowing what we were supposed to be doing somehow. I don't even know.) so they just kinda pushed it along, not taking his role play seriously, thinking he was OOC saying "I steal X" because he burst into laughter every time, but the DM accepted it. DM kinda accepted a lot of things not considering stuff as OOC. I thought it was understood we would say "my character says" or "my character does".

It looks to me like you have one player trying to play a different game than everybody else. This is a player problem, not a character problem. Talk with your entire group about the expectations for the game.

For me and my group keeping the game moving is integral for the Players and DM to have fun. Things that slow the game down for all but one player is not fun, so we would be having a conversation at the next session before playing.

[Pex]

Yeah, just don't do it.


This I disagree with. Finders Keepers and all that. If you find treasure, it's up to you if you're going to share. If there's some kind of party agreement to share all loot, that might be a different matter, but generally speaking, I don't see this as "theft".

If I'm fighting the wraith and you go off into another room and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

If you're scouting ahead and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

[JellyPooga]

If I'm fighting the wraith and you go off into another room and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

If you're scouting ahead and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

I dislike the while notion of "the party" being an entity in most games. Largely speaking, "the party" is a rag-tag bunch of loners who have banded together for mutual protection. If the "thief" abandons the group to go looting while the others are in danger, his fault is ditching in the middle of a fight, not looting. If the "thief" is putting himself at risk by going ahead alone for the benefit of the party, I see it as his perogative to get "first dibs". If he's spending the money for the benefit of "the party" by buying himself better equipment so he can do his job better thus helping the party as a whole, what's the problem?

[IShouldntBehere]

I dislike the while notion of "the party" being an entity in most games. Largely speaking, "the party" is a rag-tag bunch of loners who have banded together for mutual protection. If the "thief" abandons the group to go looting while the others are in danger, his fault is ditching in the middle of a fight, not looting. If the "thief" is putting himself at risk by going ahead alone for the benefit of the party, I see it as his perogative to get "first dibs". If he's spending the money for the benefit of "the party" by buying himself better equipment so he can do his job better thus helping the party as a whole, what's the problem?

I can't say this describes any game I've played in or GM'd. Most games I've played in have ranged from "Group of friends forced into strange circumstances" to "Members of an organization acting under orders" and "Strangers brought together by a common goal".

Even the PC groups I've seen that are literal mercenaries usually wind up having a fair degree of loyalty to one another and find a common cause beyond the paycheck.

Heck I've only seen one or two PCs period that could fairly described as loners. I mean I've seen a gaggle of creeps and violent lunatics but even they tend to regard their fellow PCs as friends.

I'm not saying this perspective is invalid or games like that don't exist. It's just utterly alien to me.

[Pex]

I dislike the while notion of "the party" being an entity in most games. Largely speaking, "the party" is a rag-tag bunch of loners who have banded together for mutual protection. If the "thief" abandons the group to go looting while the others are in danger, his fault is ditching in the middle of a fight, not looting. If the "thief" is putting himself at risk by going ahead alone for the benefit of the party, I see it as his perogative to get "first dibs". If he's spending the money for the benefit of "the party" by buying himself better equipment so he can do his job better thus helping the party as a whole, what's the problem?

And the cleric doesn't have to heal you.
And the fighter doesn't have to attack the monster for you.
And the wizard doesn't have to cast a spell for you.

If you're not going to act like a party member I don't want you in my party.

[NecroDancer]

If I'm fighting the wraith and you go off into another room and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

If you're scouting ahead and find a box, disarm the trap, take the potion and gems, and don't tell the party, yes, that's stealing from the party.

If the thief is scouting ahead and finds loot I'd be ok with him taking it for himself assuming he did it by himself.

If the thief took the loot while the party was protecting him than the loot belongs to the party in whole.

For example I went on a dangerous solo mission. (I was the only character with dimension Door) to rescue a prisoner (everyone was fine with me doing it), during the rescue I acquired quite a bit of cash and a magic sword. When I teleported out I gave the magic sword to someone who could use it and kept the money and everyone was ok with my actions because I was the only one risking death to get them and I didn't keep items that I had no use for.

Of course I also got a lot of powerful items later on so I decided to stop taking my share of money whenever we looted people as a way to balance out the wealth in the party.

[Laurefindel]

I play by rule 0.5: don't be a jerk.

I consider stealing from your friends a jerk move; I'm not going to have fun in that campaign unless I'm playing with the right type of players.

Even then, it's a fine line between character being a jerk and player being a jerk. That's the sort of things that should be discussed between players ahead of time and regularly 'OKed' as the campaign progresses.

[JellyPooga]

I can't say this describes any game I've played in or GM'd..

Hmm, when I say "loners", I don't mean literal anti-social loner types, I'm talking about the notion that (at least in my experience) most parties tend to be made up of a bunch of characters from wildly disparate walks of life. Take the "typical party" of thr Ex-Soldier, the Guild Thief, the member of the Clergy and the Collegiate Scholar (aka: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard); they're only a party because...well, they're playing the same game really. I've rarely played a game where there was a common background between two given characters in a party, let alone every member.

With that being the case, what is there that really holds the group together and binds them as a "Party" to the extent that any given character would willingly act against their usual nature? The case in point being someone that is either greedy, klepto or otherwise used to simply looking out for themselves above some random dudes they only met a few days/weeks/months ago and happen to be adventuring with for whatever contrived reason the GM came up with to throw them into the same boat (which is usually something that feels very forced and is often swept under the rug as being somewhat unimportant).

Unless the party has an actual reason to feel any kind of loyalty to one another, beyond the necessities and dangers of the job, the notion that anyone in that party should always be a team-player and 'fess up to every little find, spend their last heal on someone other than themself or go out of the way to throw themselves in harms way to "save the squishies" at every opportunity...well, it's daft.

If there's a good reason for that kind of loyalty, then yeah, I'd be inclined to agree that "stealing" from the party by pocketing loot you found instead of sharing, is a bad move. In almost every game I've played or heard of, that kind of loyalty only exists when all the characters involved are of a particular type; Paladins, Clerics, Fighters...Lawful types, you know? I've got nothing against players that tend to play Lawful characters, but I do have a problem with it when those players get all up in my Chaotic grill telling me I should be more of a team-player. Psh! Give me a reason why I should :smallamused:

So yeah, I agree;
The Cleric doesn't have to heal me,
The Fighter doesn't have to fight my battles for me,
The Wizard doesn't have to cast a spell for me

...and I don't have to share every copper piece I find with people I hardly know.

You don't like it? No skin off my back. This Rogue is a man of means and operates best on his lonesome anyway...damned party clanking and stumbling around, shouting and generally making things harder anyway. You hired me to scout and find traps, remember?

[Pex]

If the thief is scouting ahead and finds loot I'd be ok with him taking it for himself assuming he did it by himself.

If the thief took the loot while the party was protecting him than the loot belongs to the party in whole.

For example I went on a dangerous solo mission. (I was the only character with dimension Door) to rescue a prisoner (everyone was fine with me doing it), during the rescue I acquired quite a bit of cash and a magic sword. When I teleported out I gave the magic sword to someone who could use it and kept the money and everyone was ok with my actions because I was the only one risking death to get them and I didn't keep items that I had no use for.

Of course I also got a lot of powerful items later on so I decided to stop taking my share of money whenever we looted people as a way to balance out the wealth in the party.

Of course. I already mentioned. Whatever you do on your own downtime is fine with me.


Hmm, when I say "loners", I don't mean literal anti-social loner types, I'm talking about the notion that (at least in my experience) most parties tend to be made up of a bunch of characters from wildly disparate walks of life. Take the "typical party" of thr Ex-Soldier, the Guild Thief, the member of the Clergy and the Collegiate Scholar (aka: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard); they're only a party because...well, they're playing the same game really. I've rarely played a game where there was a common background between two given characters in a party, let alone every member.

With that being the case, what is there that really holds the group together and binds them as a "Party" to the extent that any given character would willingly act against their usual nature? The case in point being someone that is either greedy, klepto or otherwise used to simply looking out for themselves above some random dudes they only met a few days/weeks/months ago and happen to be adventuring with for whatever contrived reason the GM came up with to throw them into the same boat (which is usually something that feels very forced and is often swept under the rug as being somewhat unimportant).

Unless the party has an actual reason to feel any kind of loyalty to one another, beyond the necessities and dangers of the job, the notion that anyone in that party should always be a team-player and 'fess up to every little find, spend their last heal on someone other than themself or go out of the way to throw themselves in harms way to "save the squishies" at every opportunity...well, it's daft.

If there's a good reason for that kind of loyalty, then yeah, I'd be inclined to agree that "stealing" from the party by pocketing loot you found instead of sharing, is a bad move. In almost every game I've played or heard of, that kind of loyalty only exists when all the characters involved are of a particular type; Paladins, Clerics, Fighters...Lawful types, you know? I've got nothing against players that tend to play Lawful characters, but I do have a problem with it when those players get all up in my Chaotic grill telling me I should be more of a team-player. Psh! Give me a reason why I should :smallamused:

So yeah, I agree;
The Cleric doesn't have to heal me,
The Fighter doesn't have to fight my battles for me,
The Wizard doesn't have to cast a spell for me

...and I don't have to share every copper piece I find with people I hardly know.

You don't like it? No skin off my back. This Rogue is a man of means and operates best on his lonesome anyway...damned party clanking and stumbling around, shouting and generally making things harder anyway. You hired me to scout and find traps, remember?

I see. You're a "That Guy". I've long learned never to play with or tolerate such players.

[Honest Tiefling]

If you aren't going to share money with heavily armed potentially murderous strangers, then you really can't complain when they try to kill the guy cheating them of a few copper when they're doing the work. The question then becomes why is the party a group of people who likely have murderous tendencies and no reason to cooperate?

[JellyPooga]

I see. You're a "That Guy". I've long learned never to play with or tolerate such players.

And you appear to be the "other guy", whatever that means. Try not to read too much into what you read on forums until you've played a game with me, huh?

If you restrict yourself to playing only certain types of games, I can't help but think you're missing out. You'll never enjoy the likes of characters such as Jack Sparrow in the games you play. You'll never have a "guide" like Gollum. Sure, people rave abut how much they hate Kender, but Tasselhoff remains a much loved character in the Dragonlance novels and yet you refuse to even entertain the idea of such a character in a game you're playing? Because of what? The notion that every party has to be some kind of happy-friend-super-team that always gets along, always does exactly the right and optimal thing and never ever takes a selfish action if it would harm the "party"?

Sounds dull.

[Arial Black]

Sure, people rave abut how much they hate Kender, but Tasselhoff remains a much loved character in the Dragonlance novels and yet you refuse to even entertain the idea of such a character in a game you're playing? Because of what? The notion that every party has to be some kind of happy-friend-super-team that always gets along, always does exactly the right and optimal thing and never ever takes a selfish action if it would harm the "party"?

Oh, I'd be totally happy if my proud barbarian was in the same party as Tasslehoff (who was only 'loved' because the writers didn't have everyone else react by killing the little git), and he'd tell me about his people's habit of taking other people's stuff and I'd tell him about my people's habit of killing anyone who takes their stuff.

Suitably warned, if Tasslehoff then took my stuff then I'd kill him. "But I was only behaving like kender are supposed to!" cries the little sneak. "And I was only behaving like my people are supposed to", replies the proud barbarian.

This satisfies your ideal about parties not being a 'happy-friend-super-team' quite nicely, don't you think?

[JellyPooga]

Oh, I'd be totally happy if my proud barbarian was in the same party as Tasslehoff (who was only 'loved' because the writers didn't have everyone else react by killing the little git), and he'd tell me about his people's habit of taking other people's stuff and I'd tell him about my people's habit of killing anyone who takes their stuff.

Suitably warned, if Tasslehoff then took my stuff then I'd kill him. "But I was only behaving like kender are supposed to!" cries the little sneak. "And I was only behaving like my people are supposed to", replies the proud barbarian.

This satisfies your ideal about parties not being a 'happy-friend-super-team' quite nicely, don't you think?

If you consider death a suitable punishment for theft, then yeah, I guess. A little extreme, but fine; you warned, I ignored it, I should consider the consequences. My point is that conflict within a party is not necessarily a bad thing; it doesn't always have to be rainbows and sunshine, cooperation and teamwork. D&D is a game about conflict and that's not restricted to the conflicts between the NPC's the GM throws at you and the Players' characters. If the party thief takes a little more than his share without the other party members knowing about it, it's on his head if they find out and it's an opportunity to play your characters if and when they do. Don't mistake this for a cry of "but it's what my character would do!"...it's roleplaying a character and if done right is a chance to explore the social interactions between party members and their disparate natures and backgrounds; something that is often left by the wayside in favour of the interactions between PC and NPC.

Consider the stories we read and watch and hear; what is it that engages us? Sometimes we're reading the Odyssey and it's all about the party vs. the challenges they face. Other times we're reading The Lord of the Rings and it's the characters themselves that keep us reading, far more than what they're doing. Think about Frodo, Sam and Gollum in The Two Towers; the challenges they face are some walking, more walking and then they walk some more...not much to keep us reading, right? But if they three were all PC's it'd be a pretty dull "game". Make one of those characters antagonistic and suddenly we have something worth reading.

[Glorthindel]

My attitude is, if you are going to do something, be interesting.

"I pick character x's pocket", and rolling a super-high skill against another characters mediocre-to-average one. Boring, boring, boring. Go away, you are not adding anything interesting to the game. Taking advantage of your class-specific stat and skillsets to win one over on players who have rightly focused on their class specific stats and skillsets, instead of gimping themselves in order to cover a "defend against the rogues cheap moves" build is not special, not in any way clever, and is just causing frustration and annoyance.

If you can't get that "feel" of being a rogue without getting some theiving done, show a bit of imagination and originality, and I'll support to the hilt your right to do it.

I once played in a group with a rogue who once switched a ring on a corpses finger for the one he was himself wearing (turns out he traded up a +1 Ring of Protection for a +3); it was sly, a bit of a gamble (he could have lost out on his own magic ring for something worthless), but well thought out. I only knew because when my Wizard identified the "corpses" ring, the DM told me I was aware I had identified that exact ring before, and I put 1 and 1 together. I then identified the Rogues new ring for him for free because I thought what he did was quite funny.

Likewise, I knew a rogue whose character had a full suite of evaluation skills, so his party always handed him gems to give them a clue what the value was. Unknown to them, he also had a pocket of cheap gems of all colours, and would occasionally (no more than one per "set" of gems found) swap a found one for one of his cheap replacements. Again, a well thought out con, that I am completely ok with, since it relies on a bit of planning, and is being done in moderation.

[JellyPooga]

My attitude is, if you are going to do something, be interesting.

I very much agree with this. It applies to any character, too. The Fighter who just Attacks in every round and sits back twiddling his thumbs in non-combat scenarios...try shaking things up a bit; it might not be "optimal" to try and grapple your foe for a change and it might throw a spanner in the works if he loudly declares that the Crown Prince is a "simpering fool" in front of the King, but at least it's interesting and if it's in character and isn't going to derail the game entirely (like attacking said Crown Prince might), then what's the problem?

Complacency and unoriginality are the bane of a good story and too often I've seen games stagnate because the players were too focused on always taking the "best" course of action, always being the "team player" and generally playing the game "by the numbers". Shake it up a little; who knows, it might be fun!

[Pex]

And you appear to be the "other guy", whatever that means. Try not to read too much into what you read on forums until you've played a game with me, huh?

If you restrict yourself to playing only certain types of games, I can't help but think you're missing out. You'll never enjoy the likes of characters such as Jack Sparrow in the games you play. You'll never have a "guide" like Gollum. Sure, people rave abut how much they hate Kender, but Tasselhoff remains a much loved character in the Dragonlance novels and yet you refuse to even entertain the idea of such a character in a game you're playing? Because of what? The notion that every party has to be some kind of happy-friend-super-team that always gets along, always does exactly the right and optimal thing and never ever takes a selfish action if it would harm the "party"?

Sounds dull.

Your rogue was not "hired". The party just formed together by the metagame reason that you are all PCs. No harm in having an in game reason your party formed. Your participation in the party is no more important than anyone else's. You are no more deserving of extra compensation.

[JellyPooga]

Your rogue was not "hired".

Could have been. Either way, the reason he's kept around is to scout and find traps; a dangerous proposition given that everyone else does things as a collective.


The party just formed together by the metagame reason that you are all PCs. No harm in having an in game reason your party formed. Your participation in the party is no more important than anyone else's. You are no more deserving of extra compensation.

It's no more important, but by its solo nature, it is more dangerous. Being the guy on the front line when it comes to traps also makes him ttarget number one for such things and he risks no less in combat. Sounds to me like he might be deserving of a little extra "danger pay". If I was a Rogue, thatcs what I'd be thinking, anyway.

That aside, the whole reason the party formed is rather the issue; leaving it as a "metagame reason" is what I dislike. If there's a valid reason; you're all under contract, or you're all part of an organisation for example, then fine; share and share alike. If it's just a case of "we're all PC's" then I see no obligation for anyone to be anything but selfish if that coincides with their alignment.

[Phoenix042]

When players try to interact - in any way - with NPCs, I try not to control the PC's behavior in any way, and allow even essential NPCs to be messed with, hurt, or even killed.

When players interact with other players, the relevant players must agree on how they'd like to resolve the activity. Player-player conflict is NOT allowed in my games, but PC - PC conflict is encouraged as long as everyone's having fun.

For example, if one of my player's declares that his character attacks another player's character, player #2 decides how to resolve the attack. They might decide that it hits, that it misses, or that they'd like to let the dice decide. Either way, players don't get to exert in-game power over the other players IRL. That's just a ****ty environment for everyone, and it's not what D&D is about.

Similarly, if a player declares that his character attempts to steal from another player's character, the latter player decides how to resolve the activity. Maybe they declare that their character catches the first one, that they don't notice, or they call for an opposed check; whatever they think will be most fun.

Typically though, I want players to agree on in-game conflict before it actually gets to the point where they're declaring hostile actions against one another.

Sometimes inter-party conflict can be fun, but by giving everyone the power to decide how their characters are affected by other player's characters, I prevent people from ruining other's fun.

[MadBear]

If it's just a case of "we're all PC's" then I see no obligation for anyone to be anything but selfish if that coincides with their alignment.

And like always I think this attitude is entirely dependent on the group your playing with. In my group that attitude wouldn't fly.

Our group has a ton of internal conflict, players sometimes play evil alignments, and the party isn't a "super team", but we there's a certain social contract of having fun in the game that you don't:

- Steal from other members
- Steal treasure from the party
- Don't hurt/kill others of the party
- Don't let your characters persona get the group killed ("What Ugg the barbarian would charge the dragon because he doesn't know he's level 1, it's not my fault it then spotted us and killed everyone").

But again, this is my group. If it flys in your group, cool beans bro.

Also I would say:

"It's no more important, but by its solo nature, it is more dangerous. Being the guy on the front line when it comes to traps also makes him ttarget number one for such things and he risks no less in combat. Sounds to me like he might be deserving of a little extra "danger pay". If I was a Rogue, thatcs what I'd be thinking, anyway."

with that mind set, I'm guess the wizard could charge the group for casting his spells since, why should he waste his precious resources, especially when he's not as capable a fighter.

and the fighter who takes sentinel to keep the enemy targeting him should demand extra pay for the extra danger he's in by comparison.

[MadBear]

When players try to interact - in any way - with NPCs, I try not to control the PC's behavior in any way, and allow even essential NPCs to be messed with, hurt, or even killed.

When players interact with other players, the relevant players must agree on how they'd like to resolve the activity. Player-player conflict is NOT allowed in my games, but PC - PC conflict is encouraged as long as everyone's having fun.

For example, if one of my player's declares that his character attacks another player's character, player #2 decides how to resolve the attack. They might decide that it hits, that it misses, or that they'd like to let the dice decide. Either way, players don't get to exert in-game power over the other players IRL. That's just a ****ty environment for everyone, and it's not what D&D is about.

Similarly, if a player declares that his character attempts to steal from another player's character, the latter player decides how to resolve the activity. Maybe they declare that their character catches the first one, that they don't notice, or they call for an opposed check; whatever they think will be most fun.

Typically though, I want players to agree on in-game conflict before it actually gets to the point where they're declaring hostile actions against one another.

Sometimes inter-party conflict can be fun, but by giving everyone the power to decide how their characters are affected by other player's characters, I prevent people from ruining other's fun.

I love how you resolve this, and will be stealing it for future games I DM.

[Phoenix042]

I love how you resolve this, and will be stealing it for future games I DM.

That works out well, as I stole it unashamedly from another DM on the WotC forums years ago, during a similar discussion.

My group loves it; the players that like inter-party conflict get to play it out, but none of the other players actually end up feeling upset or powerless IRL.

I consider it the job of everyone at the table to make sure everyone else is having fun.

[Dr.Samurai]

Of the responses thus far, I align most with Pex.

Don't steal from the group. Don't steal from NPC allies and quest givers. It's super annoying. Compulsive behavior is, in my experience, *rarely* done well, and usually ends up completely uninteresting, tiring, and annoying. At best. Inspiration for murder at worst.

So I absolutely hate it. For me, it's mostly a trust issue. It doesn't make sense that people would brave the dangers of dungeons and dragons alongside someone that steals from them in their sleep, or in the middle of combat, or someone that can't help themselves but to anger a pivotal NPC over a shiny trinket. It's like "No, you're reckless, untrustworthy, and I can't turn my back on you. **** off, because the rest of us are trying to work together thank you very much."

[Honest Tiefling]

So I absolutely hate it. For me, it's mostly a trust issue. It doesn't make sense that people would brave the dangers of dungeons and dragons alongside someone that steals from them in their sleep, or in the middle of combat, or someone that can't help themselves but to anger a pivotal NPC over a shiny trinket. It's like "No, you're reckless, untrustworthy, and I can't turn my back on you. **** off, because the rest of us are trying to work together thank you very much."

Yeah, this is how I see it. There is going to be conflict in your rag-tag group of adventurers for sure, but there needs to be a certain level of trust because you have to sleep when the other guy is awake. Who would go even 10 feet away from civilization with someone inclined to lie, cheat, steal and abandon you?

Phoenix042's rule does make sense, and I might steal it for games with other people. Any further recommendations on how to use it?

[Dudewithknives]

I look at it like this, either inner party conflict is allowed or it is not.

Sure, if the person has the skills to steal from someone and wants to deal with the consequences of doing it fine.

Same with a barbarian rolling intimidate against the party.
Same with if a wizard casts an enchantment spell on a team member.
Same as if the fighter rolls athletics to shove a team mate.
Same as if a caster gets a team member caught in a spell he casts.

All that or no hostile actions at all.

[Phoenix042]

Phoenix042's rule does make sense, and I might steal it for games with other people. Any further recommendations on how to use it?

Bring it up and explain it to your group before you start using it. Make sure they're all aware that inter-party conflict is encouraged only if everyone wants to play it out.

Also remind them that they're responsible for the environment that they create. Creating party cohesion shouldn't be the DMs job. I task my players with explaining to each other why they stay with the party. If you've got a murder-hoboing character who frequently backstabs his friends, then you (the player) are faced with the challenge of explaining why he DOESN'T backstab THESE friends, why he instead stays with them and helps them.

You don't have to be the A-team, working like a well oiled machine. You just have to explain why your dysfunction, conflict, and general animosity isn't enough to wreck the party.

Or, agree to play out a conflict to its bloody end, if your group thinks it'd be fun. Just make sure everyone's enjoying themselves. If a player is making other players uncomfortable by the way he plays his character, he's not doing his job.

[IShouldntBehere]

You don't like it? No skin off my back. This Rogue is a man of means and operates best on his lonesome anyway...damned party clanking and stumbling around, shouting and generally making things harder anyway. You hired me to scout and find traps, remember?

I think we definitely just play very different types of games. I can think of maybe one or two games I played where a character like this would be considered a valid concept, but those were far more big-picture pvp-enabled sort of games with no traditional party structure.

For me at the bare minimum an appropriate character for a cooperative game with team objectives is one that is able and willing to put in a good faith effort effort in being part of the team. "I'm a badass lone wolf who don't need you loud clumsy oafs alone" is totally unappealing to play with or gm for. If I got such a concept from a player I'd certainly reject it outright be really confused where they got the idea it'd be OK.

That you see this as something of the standard probably means we just don't even enough common experiences with the game to have a coherent conversation on how to handle these sorts of things.

[JellyPooga]

I think we definitely just play very different types of games.
snip
That you see this as something of the standard probably means we just don't even enough common experiences with the game to have a coherent conversation on how to handle these sorts of things.

It's a fair comment, but I do understand the other side of this argument; I've even played many "team-player" characters myself (including one who literally sacrificed himself to save the party). What I don't agree with is the notion that other players should have an absolute veto on a certain style of character, or rather that this particular style of character is somehow "bad" or "disruptive". I appreciate that they can be, but that is a player problem, not a character one.

No, these "antagonist" characters aren't going to fit into every group (whether that be player or character group) and such things should be considered/discussed when starting a game or designing a character. Having said that, I dislike the notion that such characters should always be vetoed; they can be interesting characters, both to play and play alongside, so a flat "no lone wolves/untrustworthy characters" is raining not only on my parade (or whoever is wanting to play such a character) but is also limiting the potential stories that can be told to a relatively small sub-set of this archetypal "loyal, trustworthy, team-player" style character.

To address the question of why a group would have an unstrustworthy character in their party; there are all sorts of reasons, but necessity is one (Gollum), as is familiarity with a single other party member (Raistlin), among others, which brings me back to my earlier comments about establishing why the party is a party being important to whether or not such a character is viable and not something that should be swept under the rug as part of the metagame.

[Honest Tiefling]

To address the question of why a group would have an unstrustworthy character in their party; there are all sorts of reasons, but necessity is one (Gollum), as is familiarity with a single other party member (Raistlin), among others, which brings me back to my earlier comments about establishing why the party is a party being important to whether or not such a character is viable and not something that should be swept under the rug as part of the metagame.

...Didn't both of those examples end up betraying the others?

[MadBear]

I would think that Gollum would be a fairly bad example. In that case, he had a singular purpose for being part of the group (knowing the location/layout of their goal), that would be hard to keep up for an average adventuring party. I can see it working of a one-shot, or something of that ilk. But otherwise, you would never see Gollum hanging out with the fellowship to go on random adventures, since he was pretty much despised.

[JellyPooga]

...Didn't both of those examples end up betraying the others?

Yes. But it made a good story, no?


I would think that Gollum would be a fairly bad example. In that case, he had a singular purpose for being part of the group (knowing the location/layout of their goal), that would be hard to keep up for an average adventuring party. I can see it working of a one-shot, or something of that ilk. But otherwise, you would never see Gollum hanging out with the fellowship to go on random adventures, since he was pretty much despised.

You're largely correct. However, I use Gollum as an extreme example and further, he's a good example of the notion that there's no necessity for a player character to be a long-term member of the group. Oft-times, such untrustworthy characters can only be short-term members of the party; misplaced trust only goes so far, after all. That doesn't mean such characters have no value in playing at all, though.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes. But it made a good story, no?

Never read LOTR, and...Honestly, I don't like Dragonlance. I'm also a fan of the characters not being morons, so the idea that they would bring in a person known to be untrustworthy who is insulting them to be a bit of a case of plot induced stupidity. In fact, when Raistlin really goes off the deep end shows just how stupid Caramon was to never abandon his brother and why he needed to grow a spine and ignore Raistlin making him feel guilty for being the healthier twin. The latter might not be a bad plot element, but would require the cooperation of the entire party.

And if I remember correctly, had Raistlin not been Caramon's brother, he probably would have been left at the first inn they came across.

[Dr.Samurai]

I look at it like this, either inner party conflict is allowed or it is not.
Define "conflict". All party members don't have to get along or even like each other. We're not saying that the group has to be like the CareBears or something.

But stealing from party members, or jeopardizing missions because you just can't help yourself to try and nab something is not simply "inner party conflict".

Sure, if the person has the skills to steal from someone and wants to deal with the consequences of doing it fine.
No, not fine. I don't want the burden of constantly having to look over my shoulder to be sure my "ally" isn't robbing me, or putting me in danger. It's not charming or entertaining. It's just annoying.

Same with a barbarian rolling intimidate against the party.
No, don't do it. I'm not intimidated by the barbarian.

Same with if a wizard casts an enchantment spell on a team member.
Even worse than stealing.

Same as if the fighter rolls athletics to shove a team mate.
This wouldn't be a roll, but really shouldn't go much further than a push.

Same as if a caster gets a team member caught in a spell he casts.
If it's an accident? Not at all. If it's a necessary risk? Still not the same.

All that or no hostile actions at all.
Nope. Not all of these things are equal.

Gollum's actions almost doomed the entire mission, and therefore all of Middle Earth. Kind of proves the point we're making. You wouldn't willingly adventure with someone like that. I don't know enough about Raistlin to comment much (though I feel like at the end of the main story, he has the green gemstone and taunts Caramon about how the entire mission rests in his hands and everything depends on him, and the only reason he will save the world is because he feels like it). Raistlin, from what I remember, is a badass. But not someone I'd adventure with.

[JellyPooga]

I'm also a fan of the characters not being morons

Is it "moronic" to have misplaced trust? Perhaps, but it could also just be naive or simply the desire to think the best of otherd. Raistlin was a bit of a douche and very selfish, but it wasn't until later thay he went totally dark side. He even "debased" himself performing "magic tricks" at one point in order to help the party out when they were doing their sideshow bit. Untrustworthy =/= useless or completely disruptive.

As a further point regarding Gollum, as much of an underhanded, treacherous character as he was...if it wasn't for his greed and selfishness, Sauron would have won the War; Gollums desire for the ring and wilingness to go to any lengths to obtain it were what "won the day" (inadvertently, admittedly)...the "team-player" Frodo would have doomed the quest.

[Dr.Samurai]

For me, stories don't port over well compared to the table experience. The writer controls all characters in a story, whereas each character is controlled by different players at the table.

Like I mentioned earlier, I, as a player, don't want to deal with a kleptomaniac. But in a story, the writer gets to come up with contrived reasons why the others have to deal with the klepto.

EDIT - Re: LoTR

Inner party conflict in Lord of the Rings is:

1. Gimli and Legolas racism (this is actually more light hearted inner conflict)
2. Boromir's belief that their plan is foolish and a wasted opportunity to defeat Sauron. Boromir truly believes they should utilize the power of the ring, rather than try to infiltrate Mordor and destroy it.
3. Boromir's resentment of Aragorn's claim to the throne.

This is conflict that's interesting. We can hear Boromir arguing his case to Aragorn, or see the exchange between them at the Sword of Narsil. Gimli and Legolas competing is also fun, and seeing them become friends despite their races is great.

But the moment Boromir tries to forcibly steal the ring from Frodo, or Gollum tosses out the rest of the lembas bread and delivers them to Shelob, that conflict has gone too far for further adventuring to occur. The trust is gone.

[sir_argo]

I don't like stealing from the party, and I do consider all loot on the adventure to be party treasure. If the thief scouts ahead, anything he finds in the forward room is still party treasure. If you don't go by that rule, than the rogue/scout will end up with half the adventure loot because he's always ahead of the other party members.

I also don't agree with people who say, "Well, I'm just playing my character's personality." Would that excuse work for a sociopathic killer who loves to murder people in their sleep? "Yeah, I know I just slit your character's throat, but it's just my character's personality. Nothing personal." Same thing for people who say, "My character is a loner." Look, if you're character is a loner, then why are you in a party? If your character's personality is antisocial, then you shouldn't be in the group. Make a new character that is more of a team player.

If a person says that a thief should steal from the party because, well, that's what thieves are supposed to do, then I would suggest making it more of a roleplaying issue. I.e., thief is allowed to steal from the party, but you roleplay out evening it back out. Example: thief steals 5,000gp from a chest in the forward room. Thief gets to roleplay out how he loses that same 5,000gp. Maybe he says I go gambling and lose it that way. Maybe he says, my character has 8 illegitimate children... I go pay 5,000gp in child support. Then the DM gives the party 5,000gp in earning from non-adventure activities. The cleric gets paid to do some healing. The fighter gets hired to train soldiers. The wizard provides some magical services. In the end, 5,000gp ends up divided among the party members, but as a roleplaying tool, the thief gets to say he stole it and satisfies his character's personality trait.

[Slipperychicken]

I dunno about you guys, but I play dnd for heroic fantastical adventure, not to fume at friends betraying my trust.

Maybe I'm just weird or something, but I've tried it before and I really don't really enjoy filling my weekends with sore feelings and thoughts of petty revenge.

[Pr6i6e6st]

i personally feel like small acts of theft on other PC's is a drag on the story of done too often. I like to go by the old school rule of 3. And something always happens on the third thing to change the tide. So I feel like if you want to steal from the party, discuss this with the DM at creation. Then he's going to give you three chances to do it, taking any results, but your third time better be something epic to the story, preferably towards the end. If it's drama you want, that's the best way to work it. Too little, it was a small annoyance. Too many, it's huge and punishable without retribution. 3? Cinematic gold.

[MadBear]

If a person says that a thief should steal from the party because, well, that's what thieves are supposed to do, then I would suggest making it more of a roleplaying issue. I.e., thief is allowed to steal from the party, but you roleplay out evening it back out. Example: thief steals 5,000gp from a chest in the forward room. Thief gets to roleplay out how he loses that same 5,000gp. Maybe he says I go gambling and lose it that way. Maybe he says, my character has 8 illegitimate children... I go pay 5,000gp in child support. Then the DM gives the party 5,000gp in earning from non-adventure activities. The cleric gets paid to do some healing. The fighter gets hired to train soldiers. The wizard provides some magical services. In the end, 5,000gp ends up divided among the party members, but as a roleplaying tool, the thief gets to say he stole it and satisfies his character's personality trait.

This sounds like a wonderful way to justify "stealing" from the party without actually stealing from the party. That way no one feels screwed in the end. Instead it's just a way to narrate your character without them getting an edge on the rest of the party.

Because it wouldn't be fun to be the fighter who missed out on that awesome flaming burst sword, because the rogue put it in his bag of holding while he was "scouting" and sold it on the side.

[Pex]

I dunno about you guys, but I play dnd for heroic fantastical adventure, not to fume at friends betraying my trust.

Maybe I'm just weird or something, but I've tried it before and I really don't really enjoy filling my weekends with sore feelings and thoughts of petty revenge.

I also play D&D for heroic fantastical adventure. I don't want it ruined by a friend betraying my trust. I really don't enjoy filling my weekends with people ruining my fun with their petty selfish antics.

[Sigreid]

Reading this thread I think people are talking about different situations. There's a huge difference between the rogue, who when scouting ahead pockets a ruby before splitting the rest of the treasure with the party and is always a brave and reliable companion when the chips are down and the rogue that steals you flame tongue when you're asleep. One is not a big deal provided it's a basically insignificant amount of treasure. The other I don't know why you wouldn't murder.

[MadBear]

Reading this thread I think people are talking about different situations. There's a huge difference between the rogue, who when scouting ahead pockets a ruby before splitting the rest of the treasure with the party and is always a brave and reliable companion when the chips are down and the rogue that steals you flame tongue when you're asleep. One is not a big deal provided it's a basically insignificant amount of treasure. The other I don't know why you wouldn't murder.

sure those two things aren't quite the same, but why the need to take more treasure then anyone else? How is that a good motivation to have in a group game?

What's the difference between this, and someone just outright demanding at the end of a campaign "I'm taking 50 more gold than everyone else, because I feel I deserve it, and you guys can't stop me". I mean surely it's just a trivial sum of money. The only real difference is that at least the guy demanding it, is being honest, while the thief is playing with the game mechanics to get away with it.

[Slipperychicken]

Reading this thread I think people are talking about different situations. There's a huge difference between the rogue, who when scouting ahead pockets a ruby before splitting the rest of the treasure with the party and is always a brave and reliable companion when the chips are down and the rogue that steals you flame tongue when you're asleep. One is not a big deal provided it's a basically insignificant amount of treasure. The other I don't know why you wouldn't murder.

It really is the same, the only difference is the quantity. All PCs are meant to split the loot
by means dictated by the group.

It's like saying a fighter is entitled to 'dibs' on a monster's treasure if he killed it, and happens to be in a position to take it without meaningful resistance from the party. It's just taking things because you can, without regard to others' claims on it.

Or I guess more pertinently, it's the difference between a really good manager pocketing part of his employees' wages without their knowledge, and stealing it straight from their bank accounts. The end result is the same in both cases, and both are cause for extreme moral outrage.

[Pex]

It's not about the treasure. It partially is but not the definition. It's about the disrespect.

[JellyPooga]

Reading this thread I think people are talking about different situations.

Yeah, pretty much. The kind of thief I've been talking about is, largely speaking, not a kleptomaniac (though I would also put in a defence for the Kender style "I steal stuff, but I give it back" style trait; that's a quirk that unreasonably annoys people who get far too posseesive over their equipment lists IMO, but I won't go into that now), nor is he literally pocketing everything he can, leaving the party with nothing. I'm talking about the guy who takes a little extra as his (at least how he perceives it) deserved reward, or if it isn't deserved then "what they won't know won't hurt them".

Indeed, as a player I can kind of see the argument that another player "getting more" could be annoying but I'll repeat something I said earlier; what exactly is so bad about one party member being slightly richer than the rest if everyone is in the same boat and (largely speaking) spending the majority of their loot on self improvement? Like, 90% (butt-pulled figure) of all loot discovered is spent on equipment, assuming magic items can be purchased (and if not, then all anyone's doing with money is hoarding it anyway, so again, who cares if one guy has more?), which means that 90% is going to be spent on improving the party one way or another. From a strictly gaming point of view, whether the thief spends it on the party or the fighter or the wizard does is pretty irrelevant. If the end result is a healing potion, what does it matter who bought it? It's not like the thief is going end end up with literally all the best stuff; what would he do with a magic wand or suit of plate armour? Sell it? Yeah, he could, but would he not be better served by the wizard waving it or the fighter wearing it? I'm not talking about some kind of moron here.

As a character on the other hand, I can see all sorts of justification for getting hacked off at the thief who "steals" from the party...if you ever find out about it. Now that's a big "if". Even if we talk about the blatant douche-bag thief and important items are going missing (the wizards spellbook, the fighters magic sword, etc.) and the thief is turning up richer; aside from suspicion (which may or may not be justified; I was serious before about Class profiling; a Rogue is not necessarily a thief, or untrustworthy, though many players still make that assumption), what basis do the characters have to go accusing said thief, or getting irate with that character? After all, an item can't really be considered stolen if the victim knows about it. A good thief won't let on that he's that little bit richer, whether he's stealing directly from the party or just pocketing a little extra. Further, if we again assume that a majority of funds are spent on improving the party (one way or another), the "thief" should probably be viewed as being magnanimous by the other characters (if he's halfway competent at his job) because he's handing out spare healing potions, buying extra rations, getting more "rounds" in at the bar and so forth; it's easy to be generous when you have more money and whether you're a team-player or a selfish thief, why wouldn't you be generous with your friends (if that's what they are), given the chance?

So, to summarise; from a player perspective, all (ok, most) loot found is being spent on the party one way or another, so what's the problem? From a character perspective, the thief always seems to have a little more spare change and "wow, what a nice guy; he bought me a pint", so what's the problem? Aside from a somewhat misplaced sense of jealousy that one player has slightly bigger numbers in his GP/SP/CP columns on his character sheet, what, precisely, is so bad about "stealing" from the party? Hurt feelings? Over a game? Really? :smallconfused:

[Phoenix042]

Reading this thread I think people are talking about different situations. There's a huge difference between the rogue, who when scouting ahead pockets a ruby before splitting the rest of the treasure with the party and is always a brave and reliable companion when the chips are down and the rogue that steals you flame tongue when you're asleep. One is not a big deal provided it's a basically insignificant amount of treasure. The other I don't know why you wouldn't murder.

I actually play a fighter who is in love with the party rogue, and looks the other way when the rogue does some ethically questionable stuff, including stealing from the party (and by extension, my fighter).

Thing is, the rogue doesn't steal things we need for our jobs (since she's not stupid, and she's a part of deciding which jobs we take), and would never take my equipment or anything. She needs my sword and shield to stay in my hands, because then I can put them both squarely between her and nasty things.

The most important factor, though, is that *I* know what's going on and so does the other player, and we're all having fun with it. If one of us wasn't enjoying the story we were telling, that would be a problem.

[Arial Black]

If a person says that a thief should steal from the party because, well, that's what thieves are supposed to do, then I would...

...point out that my barbarian should kill the thief because, well, that's what barbarians are supposed to do.

Isn't role-playing fun!

[Sigreid]

All I can say at this point is I think some people take the game far more personally than anyone in my group does.

[Dr.Samurai]

The OP is specifically talking about someone that steals anything and everything. Even during combat. I'm not sure why we're talking about a different type of thief.

That said, if the "other style" of thief is not a big deal, then don't do it. I'm not sure why all the other players have to cede control of part of the party's wealth and resource expenditure to one single player because part of his character is "I steal stuff".

"Don't worry, I'll put it to good use, everyone will benefit." says the guy robbing you...

In one of my games, the rogue robbed just about everything she could hide on her person before the rest of the party entered the room. We were left with a meager portion of the loot. She assured us OOC that she would donate it to a charity. In game, she did. I... still don't care lol. Why does one person get to decide what happens with the loot? Whether you're selfish and greedy or selfish and charitable, don't cross the party line!

[Dr. Cliché]

Playing a Rogue (or roguish character):
My general rule is to avoid stealing from the party altogether. I won't say that I'd never do it, but it would have to be pretty exceptional circumstances.

As a player in a party with a thief:
- If they steal from NPCs, I really don't care (though my character might if he's a paladin or such). The exception is if your thievery start getting us into trouble with NPCs and/or the authorities.
- If they palm a little extra money, I really couldn't care less. Especially in 5e where money tends to be far less useful anyway.
- If they scout ahead (or do a solo mission) and use that as an opportunity to get first crack at magic items, then that's somewhat irritating, but still bearable.
- If they get first-crack at magic items whilst the party is distracted by a fight or right after winning said fight, then their looking to get a sound crack round the ears.
- If they directly steal from party members, then clearly they're not very attached to their kneecaps.

As a DM:
- My general rule is to give the players free reign. I don't want to artificially restrict the actions of their characters.
- Stealing from NPCs? Go nuts. If you do it too much, you'll probably attract the attention of guards and such (and may be banned from certain places who are suspicious of you). I could even use it to give you a plot hook if you steal something important or annoy a powerful NPC.
- Stealing from the party? Your funeral. I won't stop you but nor will I protect you if/when the party finds out and comes after you.

[MadBear]

As a character on the other hand, I can see all sorts of justification for getting hacked off at the thief who "steals" from the party...if you ever find out about it. Now that's a big "if".

That is the part that I find being a bit douchee. Your stealing from the party using your characters abilities. It just so happens that your abilities go about unnoticed. Outside of the fact that other characters don't know that you've been stealing items, there no difference between this situation and the fighter going "I use intimidate and scare the party into giving me more of the loot" or the wizard going "I cast mass suggestion, and make the other players give me more of the loot". Your entire justification would work just as well for those scenarios. Hey look as long as the fighter's buying healing potions for the adventure, what do you care that he's taking more money then everyone else? If the wizard is buying scrolls that help the party, what do you care that he tricked your character to get that money.

So the only real difference here is "Well my character does it in a way that theoretically means you can't retaliate because you didn't know". In a group game, that's kinda a **** move.

[Sigreid]

That is the part that I find being a bit douchee. Your stealing from the party using your characters abilities. It just so happens that your abilities go about unnoticed. Outside of the fact that other characters don't know that you've been stealing items, there no difference between this situation and the fighter going "I use intimidate and scare the party into giving me more of the loot" or the wizard going "I cast mass suggestion, and make the other players give me more of the loot". Your entire justification would work just as well for those scenarios. Hey look as long as the fighter's buying healing potions for the adventure, what do you care that he's taking more money then everyone else? If the wizard is buying scrolls that help the party, what do you care that he tricked your character to get that money.

So the only real difference here is "Well my character does it in a way that theoretically means you can't retaliate because you didn't know". In a group game, that's kinda a **** move.

Except your 2 examples are literally attacking the party.

[Dr. Cliché]

That is the part that I find being a bit douchee. Your stealing from the party using your characters abilities. It just so happens that your abilities go about unnoticed. Outside of the fact that other characters don't know that you've been stealing items, there no difference between this situation and the fighter going "I use intimidate and scare the party into giving me more of the loot" or the wizard going "I cast mass suggestion, and make the other players give me more of the loot". Your entire justification would work just as well for those scenarios.

Your examples simply don't work.

The fighter one is a really bad example because it's incredibly obvious. He's free to try and intimidate people into giving him their loot, but he can't then pretend that it didn't happen. In contrast, if a thief steals something using stealth and/or sleight of hand, he has done it without anyone seeing or noticing him. That's the whole point.

Suggestion is a bit stranger (e.g. if a character with knowledge arcana fails a save but passes the arcana check, will he know that he was the subject of the suggestion?). At the very least, it seems like it would go wrong as soon as one or more creatures failed their saves. Furthermore, I'd postulate that most people would view someone trying to control their mind to be a far worse crime than someone merely stealing from them.


Hey look as long as the fighter's buying healing potions for the adventure, what do you care that he's taking more money then everyone else?

I think the issue would lie more in him openly intimidating them. :smalltongue:


So the only real difference here is "Well my character does it in a way that theoretically means you can't retaliate because you didn't know". In a group game, that's kinda a **** move.

Well, it depends if you consider that to be from the point of view of the player or the character.

Furthermore, however much you may dislike it, he has a point - your character shouldn't be able to retaliate to a crime he isn't even aware of. Now, if something of his goes missing, he's well within his rights to suspect the thief and demand to search the thief's stuff. If the thief is stupid, he'll quickly be caught out and face the consequences. However, if he is able to magically hide the stolen item, then you can't just punish him because you know out of character that he did it (though you can remain suspicious and ask the wizard to watch him closely or somesuch). Similarly, if the thief takes treasure that you didn't even know about, then you can't just punish him for meta reasons. e.g. let's say that the thief finds a chest with 623 gold in it, and helps himself to 15gp before the party arrives. Unless you somehow knew the exact number of gold pieces in the chest, you'd have no idea that the thief had taken anything.

[MadBear]

Your examples simply don't work.

The fighter one is a really bad example because it's incredibly obvious. He's free to try and intimidate people into giving him their loot, but he can't then pretend that it didn't happen. In contrast, if a thief steals something using stealth and/or sleight of hand, he has done it without anyone seeing or noticing him. That's the whole point.

Suggestion is a bit stranger (e.g. if a character with knowledge arcana fails a save but passes the arcana check, will he know that he was the subject of the suggestion?). At the very least, it seems like it would go wrong as soon as one or more creatures failed their saves. Furthermore, I'd postulate that most people would view someone trying to control their mind to be a far worse crime than someone merely stealing from them.



I think the issue would lie more in him openly intimidating them. :smalltongue:



Well, it depends if you consider that to be from the point of view of the player or the character.

Furthermore, however much you may dislike it, he has a point - your character shouldn't be able to retaliate to a crime he isn't even aware of. Now, if something of his goes missing, he's well within his rights to suspect the thief and demand to search the thief's stuff. If the thief is stupid, he'll quickly be caught out and face the consequences. However, if he is able to magically hide the stolen item, then you can't just punish him because you know out of character that he did it (though you can remain suspicious and ask the wizard to watch him closely or somesuch). Similarly, if the thief takes treasure that you didn't even know about, then you can't just punish him for meta reasons. e.g. let's say that the thief finds a chest with 623 gold in it, and helps himself to 15gp before the party arrives. Unless you somehow knew the exact number of gold pieces in the chest, you'd have no idea that the thief had taken anything.

Your missing my entire point. So let me summarize it. The defense "What do you care as long as the wealth is being used to help the party"(simplified version of Jelly's argument) is a poor defense of justifying stealing from the group.

The reason it is a poor defense, is that other classes can use their abilities to accomplish the same goal (getting more loot then others), and they can use the exact same defense.

The end of your comment proves my point. The only difference between those 2 scenario's is the thief is doing it behind peoples back, making it even more of a **** move.

[Dr. Cliché]

Your missing my entire point. So let me summarize it. The defense "What do you care as long as the wealth is being used to help the party"(simplified version of Jelly's argument) is a poor defense of justifying stealing from the group.

I agree. But what you actually quoted to respond to was this:



As a character on the other hand, I can see all sorts of justification for getting hacked off at the thief who "steals" from the party...if you ever find out about it. Now that's a big "if".

Which indicated that this particular aspect was the one you were arguing against - not the stuff about redistributing wealth. :smalltongue:



The reason it is a poor defense, is that other classes can use their abilities to accomplish the same goal (getting more loot then others), and they can use the exact same defense.

The issue is that you are muddling metagame reasoning with in-character responses. 'Who cares about a bit of money if it's all benefiting the party anyway' is a justification by a player not their character. Now, it's not impossible that a thief would use that excuse if caught. But that's the thing, he'd use it if caught. Because, whatever his motivation, he's being as discreet as possible with the likely understanding that the rest of the party wouldn't accept his ideas about wealth distribution.

In contrast, the examples you provided involve one character threatening the party and another character using mind-control on the party - both in open-view with no attempt to hide their actions.

You could make the same argument regarding reasoning, but the difference is that it isn't metagaming to know what they're doing. If the thief has covered his tracks well, then knowing it was him who stole stuff is metagaming. Knowing that the fighter openly threatened you requires no meta knowledge.



The end of your comment proves my point. The only difference between those 2 scenario's is the thief is doing it behind peoples back, making it even more of a **** move.

Sorry, no, threatening physical violence against someone if they don't do what you want, or using magic to mind-control them, are far worse than pickpocketing them.

[Sigreid]

This thread reminds me of playing the Order of the Stick game when a friend turned to me and said "this is more fun with you here because everyone else just cooperates and you're kid of a @$!#".

[Honest Tiefling]

One thing I don't get is why characters would be inclined to trust a person who steals even a tiny bit. If they cannot be trusted on the small things, then why trust them on the large things? They show that their own wealth is above their word to the others when it comes to a 50gp gem, so why would you think that they wouldn't betray you for a larger sum of coin? Why not go back to town and get a new rogue, one that keeps their word?

If the situation is so dire as to make that unfeasible, then the situation is probably dire enough that the thief shouldn't be stirring the pot by proving their untrustiness, nor thinking of personal wealth when a large enough threat is on the horizon. If a death cult is bringing the end of the world, you NEED people you can trust and not someone who will potentially detract from the party's trust, morale, and wealth for their own gain.

Personally, I see the thief stealing from the party as a form of PvP...Because it is a form of player character versus player character. Don't want to get killed by the barbarian? Don't provoke other characters. I really dislike people who do things like kill NPCs or steal and expect to get away with it by hiding behind 'no PVP rules'.

[MadBear]

I agree. But what you actually quoted to respond to was this:



Which indicated that this particular aspect was the one you were arguing against - not the stuff about redistributing wealth. :smalltongue:



The issue is that you are muddling metagame reasoning with in-character responses. 'Who cares about a bit of money if it's all benefiting the party anyway' is a justification by a player not their character. Now, it's not impossible that a thief would use that excuse if caught. But that's the thing, he'd use it if caught. Because, whatever his motivation, he's being as discreet as possible with the likely understanding that the rest of the party wouldn't accept his ideas about wealth distribution.

In contrast, the examples you provided involve one character threatening the party and another character using mind-control on the party - both in open-view with no attempt to hide their actions.

You could make the same argument regarding reasoning, but the difference is that it isn't metagaming to know what they're doing. If the thief has covered his tracks well, then knowing it was him who stole stuff is metagaming. Knowing that the fighter openly threatened you requires no meta knowledge.



Sorry, no, threatening physical violence against someone if they don't do what you want, or using magic to mind-control them, are far worse than pickpocketing them.

I see the confusion now. My apologies for being unclear.

I'm talking purely about using OOC justifications, not in-character ones. I'm simply trying to say that a players who justifies stealing by saying "if it's being used to help the party who cares" is a bad argument.

"In contrast, the examples you provided involve one character threatening the party and another character using mind-control on the party - both in open-view with no attempt to hide their actions. "

The in-character examples were supposed to be obvious examples where a PC did something really dumb (intimidating the group, using spells on the party), where the player could just as easily use that same excuse. If the DM allowed those examples to work, and the other players were upset, the player could say "as long as it's benefits the who cares that I'm taking more then my fair share".

[Sigreid]

I see the confusion now. My apologies for being unclear.

I'm talking purely about using OOC justifications, not in-character ones. I'm simply trying to say that a players who justifies stealing by saying "if it's being used to help the party who cares" is a bad argument.

"In contrast, the examples you provided involve one character threatening the party and another character using mind-control on the party - both in open-view with no attempt to hide their actions. "

The in-character examples were supposed to be obvious examples where a PC did something really dumb (intimidating the group, using spells on the party), where the player could just as easily use that same excuse. If the DM allowed those examples to work, and the other players were upset, the player could say "as long as it's benefits the who cares that I'm taking more then my fair share".

Realky, my position boils down to my not getting bent over in character stuff IRL. It's also my position that if a character is caught palming extra loot his player shouldn't get bent overy his character being beat, kicked out of the group after all his stuff is taken, or killed.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm talking purely about using OOC justifications, not in-character ones. I'm simply trying to say that a players who justifies stealing by saying "if it's being used to help the party who cares" is a bad argument.

"In contrast, the examples you provided involve one character threatening the party and another character using mind-control on the party - both in open-view with no attempt to hide their actions. "

The in-character examples were supposed to be obvious examples where a PC did something really dumb (intimidating the group, using spells on the party), where the player could just as easily use that same excuse. If the DM allowed those examples to work, and the other players were upset, the player could say "as long as it's benefits the who cares that I'm taking more then my fair share".

Ah, okay, I get what you mean now. And yeah, I basically agree.


One thing I don't get is why characters would be inclined to trust a person who steals even a tiny bit. If they cannot be trusted on the small things, then why trust them on the large things? They show that their own wealth is above their word to the others when it comes to a 50gp gem, so why would you think that they wouldn't betray you for a larger sum of coin? Why not go back to town and get a new rogue, one that keeps their word?

Well, quite a bit of adventuring could probably be classed as stealing, depending on how strict your definition is. :smallwink:

That aside, I think you'd really have to trust such people to not steal from friends/colleges. If they can't do that then it seems really unlikely the party will tolerate them for any great length of time.

[Sigreid]

Ah, okay, I get what you mean now. And yeah, I basically agree.



Well, quite a bit of adventuring could probably be classed as stealing, depending on how strict your definition is. :smallwink:

That aside, I think you'd really have to trust such people to not steal from friends/colleges. If they can't do that then it seems really unlikely the party will tolerate them for any great length of time.

The most tropish adventuring is pretty much home invasion burglary.

[Pex]

It's not necessarily the rogue class that does the stealing. Any character could have reason to be separated from the party, find treasure that was meant as group treasure, and keep it for himself without telling anyone. The rogue does not have special snowflake status for this.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sorry, no, threatening physical violence against someone if they don't do what you want, or using magic to mind-control them, are far worse than pickpocketing them.
Irrelevant really.

I mean... what you're suggesting is that a player play the game *knowing* that he is being robbed by his teammate, but unable to do anything about it because his character has never caught the thief in the act. So he just has to deal with getting robbed occasionally, or frequently, and keep pretending that everything is fine, while the player playing the douchebag gets to take what he wants and play his character how he wants with no consequences.

Sure, he's not controlling your mind or intimidating you. No, that's not making it any better.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, quite a bit of adventuring could probably be classed as stealing, depending on how strict your definition is. :smallwink:

But typically not from the party itself, unless the plot got weird again.

[Sredni Vashtar]

With regards to interparty conflict, it all depends on how it's handled. I really like Phoenix042's ruling, having used a similar idea in dealing with a kender character's handling, where he couldn't take anything from the other characters without that player's approval (if I ever homebrew a kender subrace, it'll probably be part of the rules for it). In my mind, as long as the players are getting along and having fun, the characters could hate each other.

[Sigreid]

I think at this point the positions are well defined. My recommendation is simply to find out what kind of a group you are going to be playing with, and act accordingly. Trashing your real friendships over imaginary wealth isn't worth it coming from either side.

[Dr. Cliché]

I mean... what you're suggesting is that a player play the game *knowing* that he is being robbed by his teammate, but unable to do anything about it because his character has never caught the thief in the act.

Yes I am. Because doing otherwise would be metagaming.


So he just has to deal with getting robbed occasionally, or frequently, and keep pretending that everything is fine, while the player playing the douchebag gets to take what he wants and play his character how he wants with no consequences.

And he can either suck it up and keep playing (without metagaming) or he can just sod off.

If you want to improvise a clever trap to catch the thief, go nuts. If you want to persuade the wizard to help you or use a familiar to keep watch or use divination magic to find the thief, great. Want to just grab hold of the thief, shake him upside down and see if any of your stuff drops out? Go for it.

But if all you're prepared to do is winge at the DM, then I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[JellyPooga]

The reason it is a poor defense, is that other classes can use their abilities to accomplish the same goal (getting more loot then others), and they can use the exact same defense.

And I, personally, would be fine with those players using that defence. The difference in-character might be more pronounced and antagonistic, because of the more overt "theft", which may elicit legitimate retaliation, but that would be in the nature of that groups dynamic. Maybe the Fighter is the sort to bully the others into submission and that's why they follow/tolerate him; he's a scary dude and they donct want to get on his bad side (and in the mean-time, he's handy in a scrap).

I agree, though, that player cooperation when adopting such a game style is recommended, if not essential.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes I am. Because doing otherwise would be metagaming.
Robbing from your teammates is also metagaming. Knowing that it's a game and you're all there to play and have fun, the compulsive player playing the thief feels relaxed enough to rob his allies whenever he feels like it, because he knows the consequences, if he's caught, won't be as grave as they should be.

And he can either suck it up and keep playing (without metagaming) or he can just sod off.
Judging by the responses in this thread, the thief would be the one sodding off. And rightfully so. Don't make yourself a nuisance to the rest of the table.

If you want to improvise a clever trap to catch the thief, go nuts. If you want to persuade the wizard to help you or use a familiar to keep watch or use divination magic to find the thief, great. Want to just grab hold of the thief, shake him upside down and see if any of your stuff drops out? Go for it.

But if all you're prepared to do is winge at the DM, then I have no sympathy whatsoever.
I don't want to do any of those things. I literally do not want to spend a single smidgeon of effort trying to contrive a reason to suspect your stupid thief character in game of stealing from me, and trying to roleplay out a scenario where I can catch him in the act, and then trying to get my stuff back, or teach the rogue a lesson, etc. etc. etc.

Like... I am interested in doing a million other things that don't involve having to bookkeep all the **** you're stealing from me, and figuring out how to do something about it in game without being accused of metagaming. You're forcing me to play a different game than I want to.

Fighter: It's morning? Ok. I'll do a perimeter check. Wizard said he'll make breakfast so after the check I'll do my warm-up exercises before eating.
DM: You notice your boots are missing.
Fighter: *groans* ... Ok. *turns to rogue* Give me back my boots.
Rogue: *to DM* He has no reason to suspect my character, he's metagaming.
DM: The rogue is right. You were sleeping. You don't know he took your boots. You just can't seem to find them.
Fighter: Seriously? I need my boots... Ok, I'll start looking for them.
Rogue: *laughs* This is so fun. This is an interaction between two people. That makes it interesting and good.
DM: Ok, roll an Investigation check.
Fighter: Whatever. *rolls a 4*
DM: You don't find your boots.
Rogue: *snickers*
Fighter: This is so stupid. Whatever, I'll do the perimeter check barefoot.
DM: Ok.
Rogue: When he leaves, I'll roll a sleight of hand check to pocket his dagger without anyone noticing.
Fighter: Dude, don't take my stuff.
Rogue: He's metagaming!!!
DM: Yeah, you're doing the perimeter check, you can't see what's going on at camp.

This is an exaggeration, obviously. But the point is... who in the world wants to deal with this? Who wants to roleplay any of this out? Who is interested in resolving scenes like this???

[Dudewithknives]

I have encountered this sort of situation 3 times in each of my last campaigns:

1. I was playing a Warrior of the Holy Light Paladin who was all about massive numbers of lay on hands, and a monstrous amount of HP and AC as the party protector, only healer, and tank. However, one of the other people in the party was playing a very greedy, and murderous Zen Archer Monk. The monk, literally broke into my churches head temple, stole a solid gold holy symbol from the head priest and then accidentally burned the church to the ground doing it. Needless to say my character alerted the authorities because I knew he did it. I will quote the conversation with the monk about it: We were all level 14 by this point

Me: "Give the priest back his holy symbol, and pay to have the church rebuilt and I can probably talk them into not throwing you in jail for the rest of your life."

Monk: "Hell no, I am a Zen Archer Monk, you are a crappy paladin built to tank, try and stop me and you will just die because you will never get to me to hit me, and I will kill all the other guards and priests if they try to take it back."

Me: "Ummm, well, Nothing I can really do about it."

So for the entire rest of the campaign every time anything came up between me and the monk he would just challenge me to a fight and since in Pathfinder there was absolutely no way for a tank built paladin to beat a zen archer monk, needless to say the game sucked.

The GM was all fine with us fighting it out in character, but it was not a fight I could have a chance to win at so completely ruined the campaign.

2. Same GM. Now a 5e game. I am playing a LE devout followed of an evil god. The GM now has made a rule about inner party conflict is a no-go.

My character is sewing cults of his god all over the world due to our travels, we have a NE dwarf in the group who worships Lolth and kills other dwarves any chance he gets.
Long story short, I manipulate the second largest house of dwarves into taking over the throne.
At this point, out of nowhere due to plot being handed directly to the NE Dwarf barbarian, through no work what so ever of his own, he is changed to being NG and put under a geas and made king of the dwarves, by the god of dwarves himself
At which point he has my entire cult put to death because well, he was a NE dwarf who knew about it and even helped me once or twice with backing it.
I was playing a level 12 Rogue Assassin cultists, and was told i could not try to get revenge for him killing my entire religion because it would be inner party conflict.
I asked the GM why it was ok for him to kill all 5000+ members of my faith and cult but I could not try to assassinate this new king for doing it.
After a rather heated argument for about an hour, the dwarf king was made an NPC and the player made a new character and i was given the choice of try to kill him and auto-fail and die because he is now a king with guards, and a barbarian while i am a rogue, or I could just let it all go and shut up.

Needless to say, another campaign ruined.

3. Different DM, also a 5th edition game.

Short version: Party is on a large boat and it gets attacked by sehaugin. The rogue of the party accidentally loses his magic dagger over the side of the ship when he tried to throw it at someone attacking a crewmate and missed. Due to plot the Fighter of the group was put in charge of all the groups finances, because it was a mission from the city leader and he was the best person to protect the party gold. This is not really party loot, it was mission funding loot, in the range of 35K, to a group of level 5's, so that is why the fighter was put in charge of the gold, however he did not tell them how much was in the bag. The rogue dives over the side of the boat to try to swim after his missing dagger. 2 other members of the party try to convince him to just forget it and buy a new one when the boat got to Waterdeep. They rolled really badly and he convinced them to buy him a replacement magic dagger and he would just let that one go and get back on the boat and not delay the boat.

The fighter had no intention of buying the dagger, they just wanted him to get back on the boat to continue.
So the ranger of the party pickpockets the gold.
The rogue was the only person who rolled high enough on the perception to notice, but he said that if the ranger would keep the promise to buy him a new magic dagger, he would not say anything. So when they get to Waterdeep the ranger goes out and spends about 12K of the party loot to set up a business to get the mission going and spend 300 gold on buying the rogue his replacement dagger.

Later when the group has a side mission to go take care of a gang, the fighter at this point has retrieved his gold and the ranger even admitted he stole it because the fighter was too tight with the gold to get things done. So the fighter lets the group go off on their mission and he goes back to base with the rogue.

However, once getting to the base he attacks the rogue because he is pissed at the whole situation.

While I do not have a problem with the fighter being pissed, and even possibly attacking over it, I have no idea why he is planning to kill the rogue and not the ranger, the rogue really had nothing to do with it other than he knew and did not say anything.


If you are going to allow inter party conflict, you have to allow it all. If you are not going to allow it, you must blanket ban it.

[Ellora]

Most of the people I'm gaming with now are mature sorts, so they'res less of the 'chaotic neutral thief who steals from/and or backstabs the party' syndrome - but generally, in my old experience, it can destroy games ( or result in hilarous PVP, which the mages at least feel they can always win ..)

I've always thought a campaign focussed specifically on a thieves' guild, or one daring thief and his henchmen planning heist after heist might be a total blast. The players have a reason to stick together, they get to steal stuff, and it's classic great train robbery levels of fun. Its a break from the usual do-goodness, though you can have people pitted up against an evil, or simply heartless and unfair (lawful neutral) kingdom and it's laws.

[Dr. Cliché]

Robbing from your teammates is also metagaming.

Er . . . what? Are you sure you know what that word means?


Knowing that it's a game and you're all there to play and have fun, the compulsive player playing the thief feels relaxed enough to rob his allies whenever he feels like it, because he knows the consequences, if he's caught, won't be as grave as they should be.

What are you basing this on? :smallconfused:



Judging by the responses in this thread, the thief would be the one sodding off. And rightfully so. Don't make yourself a nuisance to the rest of the table.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to tell the other players what characters they're allowed to play. You don't get to tell them that, even if they're playing a kleptomaniac or whatever, that they're not allowed to steal from the party ever because otherwise you'll have a big sulk about it.

And believe me, if I'm DMing and all you do is winge and sulk because an imaginary person took some imaginary stuff from your imaginary person, you'll be the one I boot from the table.



I don't want to do any of those things. I literally do not want to spend a single smidgeon of effort trying to contrive a reason to suspect your stupid thief character in game of stealing from me, and trying to roleplay out a scenario where I can catch him in the act, and then trying to get my stuff back, or teach the rogue a lesson, etc. etc. etc.


When did it become my character? I was speaking from the point of view of a DM in that scenario.



Like... I am interested in doing a million other things that don't involve having to bookkeep all the **** you're stealing from me, and figuring out how to do something about it in game without being accused of metagaming.

Again, I was speaking before as a DM. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't personally play characters that steal.

However, if a character stealing from your character annoys you this much, it seems really odd to me that you wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort to actually catch them.


You're forcing me to play a different game than I want to.

Sorry but you don't get to dictate every single aspect of the game.



Fighter: It's morning? Ok. I'll do a perimeter check. Wizard said he'll make breakfast so after the check I'll do my warm-up exercises before eating.
DM: You notice your boots are missing.
Fighter: *groans* ... Ok. *turns to rogue* Give me back my boots.
Rogue: *to DM* He has no reason to suspect my character, he's metagaming.
DM: The rogue is right. You were sleeping. You don't know he took your boots. You just can't seem to find them.
Fighter: Seriously? I need my boots... Ok, I'll start looking for them.
Rogue: *laughs* This is so fun. This is an interaction between two people. That makes it interesting and good.
DM: Ok, roll an Investigation check.
Fighter: Whatever. *rolls a 4*
DM: You don't find your boots.
Rogue: *snickers*
Fighter: This is so stupid. Whatever, I'll do the perimeter check barefoot.
DM: Ok.
Rogue: When he leaves, I'll roll a sleight of hand check to pocket his dagger without anyone noticing.
Fighter: Dude, don't take my stuff.
Rogue: He's metagaming!!!
DM: Yeah, you're doing the perimeter check, you can't see what's going on at camp.

This is an exaggeration, obviously. But the point is... who in the world wants to deal with this? Who wants to roleplay any of this out? Who is interested in resolving scenes like this???

That's not an exaggeration that's a straw man.

Have fun burning it, I guess.

[Dr.Samurai]

Anyone that runs around in the game robbing from everyone and everything does it so cavalierly because he expects to be able to keep doing it. Like, he doesn't expect that his character will wind up in jail for the entire time the party is delving into a dungeon. Or he doesn't expect to be kicked out of the party for good when he's caught stealing something. There is a certain amount of metagame knowledge to playing this type of douchy character.


I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to tell the other players what characters they're allowed to play. You don't get to tell them that, even if they're playing a kleptomaniac or whatever, that they're not allowed to steal from the party ever because otherwise you'll have a big sulk about it.
Lmao. I'm just repeating what you said. You said the target of theft should sod off, and I said the thief should sod off.

And believe me, if I'm DMing and all you do is winge and sulk because an imaginary person took some imaginary stuff from your imaginary person, you'll be the one I boot from the table.
I love the implication that people can't get upset over actions taken in a game. LOL! Let me know when you get back to reality.

When did it become my character?
I'm speaking generally.

However, if a character stealing from your character annoys you this much, it seems really odd to me that you wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort to actually catch them.
Hey, want to play D&D? You can roll to find out if you caught the rogue stealing from you. You didn't beat the DC? You can now tail him like a hawk and obsess over his every move and action, because you suspect it's him, but haven't been able to succeed on the skill checks to confirm. That sounds like SO. MUCH. FUN!

Sorry but you don't get to dictate every single aspect of the game.
Right, because expecting that my fellow players OOC, and my teammates IC, don't rob from me behind my back, is akin to thinking I control every aspect of the game. Lol, sure thing Doc.

That's not an exaggeration that's a straw man.

Have fun burning it, I guess.
OP literally mentions a rogue stealing a bedroll during combat while the other character is knocked out. I think I'm pretty close to the mark here.

The strawman is the noble thief that shows restraint and balances out all acts of theft with purchases for the party.

[MadBear]

Er . . . what? Are you sure you know what that word means?

While I can't presume to speak for him, my guess would be that as a player, you know when your proficiency in sleight of hand + High Dex + Expertise will virtually guarantee that no one will be able to catch you stealing. It's an in-character action, that you know will succeed because of OOC reasons.




I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to tell the other players what characters they're allowed to play. You don't get to tell them that, even if they're playing a kleptomaniac or whatever, that they're not allowed to steal from the party ever because otherwise you'll have a big sulk about it.

Actually if it's the DM they do get to tell you what characters you get to play. If your not the DM, but the whole group agree's the offending players behavior is ****ty, they do get to kick that player out.


And believe me, if I'm DMing and all you do is winge and sulk because an imaginary person took some imaginary stuff from your imaginary person, you'll be the one I boot from the table.

Not many here are completely against the rogue stealing from random NPC's, but even if they were, why sulk, when you can ask them to not do that. And if they don't list "rocks fall you die"


However, if a character stealing from your character annoys you this much, it seems really odd to me that you wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort to actually catch them.

The way the game mechanics are set up this may or may not be possible. If I'm playing a low intelligence, low wisdom barbarian, against a arcane trickster rogue, I'm probably not ever catching them.

To me, this whole issue is a bigger OOC issue, not an in character one.



That's not an exaggeration that's a straw man.

Have fun burning it, I guess.

Actually, I've had that player & DM before when I first started playing in the 90's. I regularly had the rogue stealing my weapons/armor/gear. At one point he was allowed to steal my armor off my back mid-battle, and because of his roll, I wasn't allowed to know it was him. (Now there were likely many rule-breaking things wrong with this scenario, but we were in high school and the DM just made rulings on the fly. That doesn't take away from this sort of thing existing and being stupid.)

[Dudewithknives]

While I can't presume to speak for him, my guess would be that as a player, you know when your proficiency in sleight of hand + High Dex + Expertise will virtually guarantee that no one will be able to catch you stealing. It's an in-character action, that you know will succeed because of OOC reasons.





Actually if it's the DM they do get to tell you what characters you get to play. If your not the DM, but the whole group agree's the offending players behavior is ****ty, they do get to kick that player out.



Not many here are completely against the rogue stealing from random NPC's, but even if they were, why sulk, when you can ask them to not do that. And if they don't list "rocks fall you die"



The way the game mechanics are set up this may or may not be possible. If I'm playing a low intelligence, low wisdom barbarian, against a arcane trickster rogue, I'm probably not ever catching them.

To me, this whole issue is a bigger OOC issue, not an in character one.




Actually, I've had that player & DM before when I first started playing in the 90's. I regularly had the rogue stealing my weapons/armor/gear. At one point he was allowed to steal my armor off my back mid-battle, and because of his roll, I wasn't allowed to know it was him. (Now there were likely many rule-breaking things wrong with this scenario, but we were in high school and the DM just made rulings on the fly. That doesn't take away from this sort of thing existing and being stupid.)

I had the same issue back in the late 90's however it was a OWOD Werewolf game.

I was playing a Lupus, Ragabash, Bone Gnawer.

Blissful Ignorance
Blur of the Milky Eye
Taking the Forgotten
and many other stealth/movement/breaking and entering gifts, including 2 from the Ratkin buddies I made.


Totem of The Great Trash Heap
Flaw of Kleptomania, but I was not expensive things just things that a Lupus Bone Gnawer would find interesting.
I kept it all in my "horde" which was a huge pile in the junkyard that was his shrine to The Great Trash Heap.

Our Beta in the pack (Homid Shadowlord Galliard)was about to go meet the Sept Alpha, in his $4000 custom Armani Suit to discuss battle strategy for an upcoming major fight, but on the way by thought it would good RP to step on and kill one of my little rat friends, (a normal rat, not a ratkin), mainly because well 90% of Shadowlords are tools and he VERY much looked down on my Bone Gnawer.

So I thought it would be good RP to stop and encourage him on his huge meeting.
To which I rolled my ridiculous amount of dice to steal things and stole his pants right off him.
Taking the Forgotten activated and because I beat his roll by 3, he not only never noticed I stole them, but just thought he must have forgotten to put on his pants that day.

[RickAllison]

Things I have "stolen" from the party:

A large amount of pseudo-Egyptian relics pillaged from a mummy tomb. This was done because I had a bag of holding and everyone else was concerned with a giant door telling them to keep out. Funnily enough, my kleptomaniac tendencies saved the party, as my pillaging the sarcophagi and beheading the mummies meant that the mummy lord they awoke didn't have his minions to stop their retreat (level 7 party), and he was close enough to the door to hold it open for their escape. The DM tallied my loot up and I had more than the rest of the party combined, but we wouldn't have had it at all if he hadn't done that. Worked out in the end, as a series of deaths left the bag of holding with the loot and a lot of poison in the general party's hands.

A pair of diamond wedding rings worth around 100 gp. My rogue burned these to Revivify the sorcerer with a heavy sigh. This made sense at the time as the guy was explicitly only around because he thought he could make a profit by joining them. He didn't know them, he wasn't being paid, he was just there for shinies but couldn't watch the 14-year old sorceress die while he could help.

A monk robbed multiple stores, providing the party with their primary source of potions. This counts because the party would sometimes go to shops and find that they were lacking goods or were increasing the prices due to recent thefts.

Stealing a lich's cleansed phylactery and soul-trapping gems. The party just wanted the threat of the lich gone, but reverse-engineering the process could be quite useful...

A Druid in SKT that raided a deceased noble's possessions to find a Plot Coupon that was desired by an enemy of the party's employer. This will likely be distributed later, as the Druid has nothing to buy except potions. Doesn't use armor, or items. Has few spells with costly components. The jewelery was only taken because it was found in the search.

I think those did a good job of capturing the idea of going behind the party's backs while contributing to the story. Well, not the Druid, but that one just hasn't had the payoff yet because the items were just stolen.

[Ellora]

I had the same issue back in the late 90's however it was a OWOD Werewolf game.

I was playing a Lupus, Ragabash, Bone Gnawer.

Blissful Ignorance
Blur of the Milky Eye
Taking the Forgotten
and many other stealth/movement/breaking and entering gifts, including 2 from the Ratkin buddies I made.


Totem of The Great Trash Heap
Flaw of Kleptomania, but I was not expensive things just things that a Lupus Bone Gnawer would find interesting.
I kept it all in my "horde" which was a huge pile in the junkyard that was his shrine to The Great Trash Heap.

Our Beta in the pack (Homid Shadowlord Galliard)was about to go meet the Sept Alpha, in his $4000 custom Armani Suit to discuss battle strategy for an upcoming major fight, but on the way by thought it would good RP to step on and kill one of my little rat friends, (a normal rat, not a ratkin), mainly because well 90% of Shadowlords are tools and he VERY much looked down on my Bone Gnawer.

So I thought it would be good RP to stop and encourage him on his huge meeting.
To which I rolled my ridiculous amount of dice to steal things and stole his pants right off him.
Taking the Forgotten activated and because I beat his roll by 3, he not only never noticed I stole them, but just thought he must have forgotten to put on his pants that day.

That Ragabash story fills my heart with joy - so deserving :)

[Dudewithknives]

That Ragabash story fills my heart with joy - so deserving :)

Extra tidbit.

The entire game was set in cold war Russia during Babayaga's reign.

My weapon of choice was a fetish manhole cover that was given to me by the Great Trash Heap, it had a handle on the back I could hold to use it as a shield but i could also use it for a weapon.
Someone pointed out that I was like Captain America in Russia, so I called myself Captain Communism and Fuzzyrouski. (not my deed names, just nicknames)

I even engraved the edge of my manhole cover with the words "The Learning Curve" on it, because I would bash someone with it when they need to be taught a lesson.

We broke into the Krimlin to get some info on a secret government group we thought was headed by a Black Spiral Dancer.

The Alpha stole their computer.
The Beta stole secret files on hard copy
The rest of the group raided the storage rooms for government secrets.
I used the gift that makes all locks auto open (forgot the name) in order to get into the Premier's office and stole his official Russian Premier Ink Pen.

Another time we were sneaking into a secret missile base in Siberia and we distracted the guards who were all sitting around playing poker, so they would leave the room.
I rolled enough social checks to convince the whole pack to sit around the table in Hispo form and took a Polaroid of "Hispo's Playing Poker"

[JellyPooga]

While I can't presume to speak for him, my guess would be that as a player, you know when your proficiency in sleight of hand + High Dex + Expertise will virtually guarantee that no one will be able to catch you stealing. It's an in-character action, that you know will succeed because of OOC reasons.

While there's a certain amount of OOC knowledge being employed here, there's also a great deal of IC knowledge too; a competent thief knows he's good at what he does. He has to, or he wouldn't be a thief. Just as a Fighter wouldn't charge in to battle unless he knew he was a competent combatant and thought he had a good chance of prevailing (or idiotic bravery, I suppose).

That said, I would tend to agree that the "anything and everything" thief (which I don't condone so much) is utilising his "plot armour" as a PC to at least attempt such thefts as often and cavalierly as he does and that is metagaming to a degree. Knowing that you can get away with it because you're a PC is more of an issue than the theft itself and it becomes a problem only when it's done so often or flagrantly that it derails the game for little to no purpose.

If a player wants "Kenderish" tendancies (which I'll point out that I've preciously stated that I didn't particularly want to discuss in my defence of party thefts), then you can roleplay them easily as part of downtime, slower periods or in retrospect. A good player playing this kind of character doesn't detract from the game by playing (and rolling) out every little thing and (IMO) a good GM should be permissive of it. To take the example of the thief who stole the Fighters boots before his perimeter check; instead of rolling dice and forcing the interaction, the thief player need only slip the GM a note during the "the night passes uneventfully" speech and it only takes a moment for the GM to add "in the morning, several of you find insignificant items out of place, including your boots Jim, but it doesn't take long to rectify things and get going". The Thief gets to indulge his character foible and everyone else gets a chance to bring him up on it if they want to. Otherwise, the game progresses, largely unimpeded.

In short (and to sum up my entire argument in this thread), stealing from the party is only a problem if the player is a problem and if the player is a problem, he'll be a problem whether he's playing a thief or any other character. Address that, if it's an issue. Don't try to dictate what characters good (or "normal" as I like to call them) players can and can't play.

[Dr.Samurai]

JellyPooga, I hear what you're saying.

I just feel that... when your character is stealing from my character (either directly from his person or by taking party loot while no one is looking), you lose the ability to say "you can't dictate what I can play".

At some point, the group has to get along. And if no one can dictate anything, we end up with:

"I am playing someone that will skim off the top of the party loot, and will occasionally steal from you directly. I'll decide what to do with this extra wealth and these extra items. Sometimes it will benefit the party, but if it does it is solely because I choose it. You can't dictate to me that I can't play this thief character that will rob you, and also you can't actually roll high enough to catch me in the act. So you have no recourse and simply have to deal with it, or whinge about it and sod off."

When it comes to who gets to infringe upon who, I think the person saying "Sorry, I don't want you playing someone that is going to steal from us whenever he feels like it" is much more reasonable than the one saying "Sorry, but if you are upset that I'm stealing from you whenever I want, you're being controlling and whiny."

[JellyPooga]

JellyPooga, I hear what you're saying.

I just feel that... when your character is stealing from my character (either directly from his person or by taking party loot while no one is looking), you lose the ability to say "you can't dictate what I can play".

At some point, the group has to get along. And if no one can dictate anything, we end up with:

"I am playing someone that will skim off the top of the party loot, and will occasionally steal from you directly. I'll decide what to do with this extra wealth and these extra items. Sometimes it will benefit the party, but if it does it is solely because I choose it. You can't dictate to me that I can't play this thief character that will rob you, and also you can't actually roll high enough to catch me in the act. So you have no recourse and simply have to deal with it, or whinge about it and sod off."

When it comes to who gets to infringe upon who, I think the person saying "Sorry, I don't want you playing someone that is going to steal from us whenever he feels like it" is much more reasonable than the one saying "Sorry, but if you are upset that I'm stealing from you whenever I want, you're being controlling and whiny."

As this argument has progressed, I'll admit to having come to more of an appreciation for the counter-argument to my own. I still don't agree with it, but I can see how playing a character that steals from the others is imposing a certain game style on those other players, which they may not enjoy. I freely admit that these kind of antagonistic characters won't fit in every game, but in the same breath I'll loudly declare that it's really not so much of a hardship to "endure" them that they can't at least be considered. It's the flat refusal I dislike, because the argument against it seems...weak to me, in many (if not most) cases and is hinged not on the character, per se, but the player and that's a whole different problem.

[Ellora]

Extra tidbit.

The entire game was set in cold war Russia during Babayaga's reign.

My weapon of choice was a fetish manhole cover that was given to me by the Great Trash Heap, it had a handle on the back I could hold to use it as a shield but i could also use it for a weapon.
Someone pointed out that I was like Captain America in Russia, so I called myself Captain Communism and Fuzzyrouski. (not my deed names, just nicknames)

I even engraved the edge of my manhole cover with the words "The Learning Curve" on it, because I would bash someone with it when they need to be taught a lesson.

We broke into the Krimlin to get some info on a secret government group we thought was headed by a Black Spiral Dancer.

The Alpha stole their computer.
The Beta stole secret files on hard copy
The rest of the group raided the storage rooms for government secrets.
I used the gift that makes all locks auto open (forgot the name) in order to get into the Premier's office and stole his official Russian Premier Ink Pen.

Another time we were sneaking into a secret missile base in Siberia and we distracted the guards who were all sitting around playing poker, so they would leave the room.
I rolled enough social checks to convince the whole pack to sit around the table in Hispo form and took a Polaroid of "Hispo's Playing Poker"

That sounds like good times :) Rage across russia, so classic.

My current vampire is russian, but she's a chatterling -.. well, now ex-tal'mahe'ra. Thankfully those are now rare in the world we're playing in, as I've basically betrayed them.

[Arial Black]

Fighter: It's morning? Ok. I'll do a perimeter check. Wizard said he'll make breakfast so after the check I'll do my warm-up exercises before eating.
DM: You notice your boots are missing.
Fighter: *groans* ... Ok. *turns to rogue* Give me back my boots.
Rogue: *to DM* He has no reason to suspect my character, he's metagaming.
DM: The rogue is right. You were sleeping. You don't know he took your boots. You just can't seem to find them.
Fighter: Seriously? I need my boots... Ok, I'll start looking for them.
Rogue: *laughs* This is so fun. This is an interaction between two people. That makes it interesting and good.
DM: Ok, roll an Investigation check.
Fighter: Whatever. *rolls a 4*
DM: You don't find your boots.
Rogue: *snickers*
Fighter: This is so stupid. Whatever, I'll do the perimeter check barefoot.
DM: Ok.
Rogue: When he leaves, I'll roll a sleight of hand check to pocket his dagger without anyone noticing.
Fighter: Dude, don't take my stuff.
Rogue: He's metagaming!!!
DM: Yeah, you're doing the perimeter check, you can't see what's going on at camp.

Fighter: Oi, I've got no boots, I need boots, give me yours.
Rogue: Hells, no!
Fighter: *grapples rogue, pummels him unconscious, takes boots. While the rogue is unconscious, takes opportunity to search through rogues stuff, finds his own boots and several other trinkets stolen from other party members. Remembers law regarding thieves, approves, cuts both rogues hands off*
DM: What the heck are you doing?
Fighter: Playing my character.
DM: You don't know that he took your boots; you have no reason to do this.
Fighter: You're right, I didn't know he took my boots at first, but I did know that he had a pair of his own boots, I wanted them, so I took them.
DM: You can't do that!
Fighter: You already ruled that it is okay for one PC to take another's boots just because he wants to. Live with the consequences. The rogue can wave goodbye to his hands. :smallcool:

[MadBear]

As this argument has progressed, I'll admit to having come to more of an appreciation for the counter-argument to my own. I still don't agree with it, but I can see how playing a character that steals from the others is imposing a certain game style on those other players, which they may not enjoy. I freely admit that these kind of antagonistic characters won't fit in every game, but in the same breath I'll loudly declare that it's really not so much of a hardship to "endure" them that they can't at least be considered. It's the flat refusal I dislike, because the argument against it seems...weak to me, in many (if not most) cases and is hinged not on the character, per se, but the player and that's a whole different problem.

I will say although I'm personally not a fan of having a character that steals from others, I don't think it's set in stone that no one should be able to play this way. Really, as with almost all things on this forum, talk it out with the group your playing with. We all have different experiences and expectations of what/how to play this game. If the groups cool with a light skimming off the top, awesome. If not, maybe choose a different character concept, or ask the DM how they'd prefer to resolve this conflict.

[Dr. Cliché]

Anyone that runs around in the game robbing from everyone and everything does it so cavalierly because he expects to be able to keep doing it.

But you are assuming that this is the only possible way/reason anyone could steal from the party. It can never be an isolated incident or something meaningful to their character - they just have to go around stealing everything in sight.


Like, he doesn't expect that his character will wind up in jail for the entire time the party is delving into a dungeon. Or he doesn't expect to be kicked out of the party for good when he's caught stealing something. There is a certain amount of metagame knowledge to playing this type of douchy character.

That is entirely dependant on the motivations of the character in question. You are assuming that the player can only be doing this because he's a douche, as opposed to any number of other possible reasons.

Further, he can assume that there will be no consequences all he wants. It doesn't make him right.



Lmao. I'm just repeating what you said. You said the target of theft should sod off, and I said the thief should sod off.

I didn't say that the target of theft should sod off. I said that the player who does nothing but sulk and winge about theft should sod off. There's a difference.



I love the implication that people can't get upset over actions taken in a game. LOL! Let me know when you get back to reality.

I don't object to people being upset. I object to people who think the fact that they're upset somehow gives them the right to dictate what other players' characters are allowed to do.



Hey, want to play D&D? You can roll to find out if you caught the rogue stealing from you. You didn't beat the DC? You can now tail him like a hawk and obsess over his every move and action, because you suspect it's him, but haven't been able to succeed on the skill checks to confirm. That sounds like SO. MUCH. FUN!

Given the examples you gave in your last post, wherein the rogue was stealing every one of your possessions, it really doesn't seem too hard to catch him. Pick him up by his leg, shake him upside down and see if your stuff falls out.



Right, because expecting that my fellow players OOC, and my teammates IC, don't rob from me behind my back, is akin to thinking I control every aspect of the game. Lol, sure thing Doc.

*You* are the one trying to dictate what people are allowed to do with their characters, based on what game *you* want to play.



OP literally mentions a rogue stealing a bedroll during combat while the other character is knocked out. I think I'm pretty close to the mark here.

So why did you quote me instead of the OP? :smallconfused:

I never argued in favour of stealing other people's bedrolls or other stupid nonsense like that. I wasn't even in favour of stealing at all.



The strawman is the noble thief that shows restraint and balances out all acts of theft with purchases for the party.

The straw man is that you outright lied about my position. I never once said that you weren't allowed to even be suspicious of the thief. I specifically said that that was completely fine and entirely justifiable.


While I can't presume to speak for him, my guess would be that as a player, you know when your proficiency in sleight of hand + High Dex + Expertise will virtually guarantee that no one will be able to catch you stealing. It's an in-character action, that you know will succeed because of OOC reasons.

That's debatable, I think. You could just as easily make the argument that his character is well aware of how good he is (and perhaps eager to prove it).



Actually if it's the DM they do get to tell you what characters you get to play. If your not the DM, but the whole group agree's the offending players behavior is ****ty, they do get to kick that player out.

With regard to the former, sure. However, unless I'm very much mistaken, Dr.Samurai was speaking specifically as a player. Since he was the person whose character was getting stolen from, rather than the DM overseeing it.

In terms of the latter, I agree entirely. What I disagreed with was the idea that anyone whose character steals from the party in any way must automatically be a douche (or, for that matter, the idea that anyone whose character gets stolen from cannot ever be a douche).



Not many here are completely against the rogue stealing from random NPC's, but even if they were, why sulk, when you can ask them to not do that. And if they don't list "rocks fall you die"

Again, I was under the impression that Dr.Samurai was speaking as a player, not a DM (hence, he wouldn't have the 'rocks fall you die' option).



The way the game mechanics are set up this may or may not be possible. If I'm playing a low intelligence, low wisdom barbarian, against a arcane trickster rogue, I'm probably not ever catching them.


Well, to be fair, you could ask the party members you trust most to help out. I do see your point though.



Actually, I've had that player & DM before when I first started playing in the 90's. I regularly had the rogue stealing my weapons/armor/gear. At one point he was allowed to steal my armor off my back mid-battle, and because of his roll, I wasn't allowed to know it was him. (Now there were likely many rule-breaking things wrong with this scenario, but we were in high school and the DM just made rulings on the fly. That doesn't take away from this sort of thing existing and being stupid.)

What I meant by it being a straw man was that I'd specifically said I'd be fine with the guy suspecting the rogue (or 'sneakiest' party member).


Let me make myself clear: I'm not in favour of stealing from the party.

However, I am also aware that other people don't necessarily share this view. And I just don't think I have the right to tell other people how to play their characters or indeed how to have fun. Nor do I want to ascribe evil or douchery to the players based on the actions of their characters.

If you want to set out a no-stealing-from-the-party rule before the game even starts, fine. But if no rule exists and someone's character steals from the party, I think it's better to look for an in-character solution than to try and get the DM to interfere and prevent them from playing their character.

[Slipperychicken]

That's not an exaggeration that's a straw man.

Have fun burning it, I guess.

I've personally experienced scenarios very similar to that more times than I care to remember. It's really quite common. Just about every player has dealt with that exact conversation.

There being no anti-stealing rule doesn't make the experience any less painful or time-wasting. Nor does it excuse the thieving player. It shouldn't need an explicit rule because it's a matter of roleplaying etiquette.

It's an OOC problem amyway, so trying to roleplay it out is unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. Countless groups have suffered greatly or even broken up over attempts to play along instead of working to stop the behavior at its OOC source.

[Dr. Cliché]

I've personally experienced scenarios very similar to that more times than I care to remember. It's really quite common. Just about every player has dealt with that exact conversation.

I've said this twice already, but whatever.

I didn't call it a straw man because it was an impossible scenario. I called it a straw man because it completely misrepresented my position on the matter.

[Dr.Samurai]

But you are assuming that this is the only possible way/reason anyone could steal from the party. It can never be an isolated incident or something meaningful to their character - they just have to go around stealing everything in sight.
Yes, because that is what the thread is about. I'm staying on topic, and given various other responses, this type of behavior is more common than you seem to think it is.

That is entirely dependant on the motivations of the character in question. You are assuming that the player can only be doing this because he's a douche, as opposed to any number of other possible reasons.
I think you are reading my comments as if typed out by a machine. The in-character motivations are almost completely irrelevant to me, because stealing from other people this way is just disruptive to the game and bad etiquette as someone else mentioned. It is an OOC problem. The guy or girl might not be a douche, but I'm calling the behavior douchey.

Further, he can assume that there will be no consequences all he wants. It doesn't make him right.
Nine times out of ten he will be right. I've *never* sat down at a game where one of the players had his character spend time in jail while the rest of us went adventuring because his stupid thieving antics were discovered and he got locked up and there wasn't a readily available way for him to escape immediately to rejoin the group. It's common for the thief to simply get away with it and for the game to carry on. The party doesn't split in-game, the players split out of game because fights occur and people don't like being robbed all the time.

I didn't say that the target of theft should sod off. I said that the player who does nothing but sulk and winge about theft should sod off. There's a difference.
No, there is no difference. On the one hand, someone is complaining that he isn't allowed to steal from everyone. On the other hand, someone is complaining that the other guy is stealing from him. You're saying one should leave, I'm saying the other shouldn't steal. You have no moral high ground here. Your position is less tenable, not more.

You can say "sulk" and "whinge" all you want to belittle sane and rational people that don't want to play alongside a klepto, but it isn't fooling anyone.

I don't object to people being upset. I object to people who think the fact that they're upset somehow gives them the right to dictate what other players' characters are allowed to do.
This is completely untenable, and you know it. You know at some point, when your actions start impacting other players, they get to complain and say "stop that!"

The situation you're implying simply doesn't exist.

Given the examples you gave in your last post, wherein the rogue was stealing every one of your possessions, it really doesn't seem too hard to catch him. Pick him up by his leg, shake him upside down and see if your stuff falls out.
But as per previous posts, you need to suspect him first. And given previous posts, this solution you propose does not go down so easily. Better to simply not take **** that doesn't belong to you.

*You* are the one trying to dictate what people are allowed to do with their characters, based on what game *you* want to play.
Yeah, it's my opinion. The OP is asking for it. I don't think people should play these types of characters, and I don't think people sit around the table to immediately start trying to figure out where their missing stuff went, knowing full well the idiot rogue has it, and now having to decide whether they want to put the time and effort into "suspecting" the rogue and then trying to get their stuff back and preventing future theft, or just playing the actual game they sat at the table to play in the first place.

So why did you quote me instead of the OP? :smallconfused:

I never argued in favour of stealing other people's bedrolls or other stupid nonsense like that. I wasn't even in favour of stealing at all.

The straw man is that you outright lied about my position. I never once said that you weren't allowed to even be suspicious of the thief. I specifically said that that was completely fine and entirely justifiable.
You said that the intimidation and enchanting were worse than pickpocketing, and while I (just barely) agree, I was pointing out that the pickpocketing is still bad. It is disruptive. The example was to demonstrate how and why it is still not good. Yeah, the wizard might not be controlling your mind, but your actions are still under control of the thief to some extent because you have to deal with the theft in one way or the other.

Regarding suspicion, it was one of Jelly's points that a good rogue won't even be suspected in the first place. I've run across this in game as well, where before you can even accuse the rogue you need to justify why you suspect him in the first place. It's leads to a stupid blurring of OOC/IC where you start spending energy trying to contrive ways to catch the rogue, and if you don't, you just become easy prey for his antics.

Again, I'm talking specifically about the kind of rogue in the OP, and the one that some of us have clearly had experiences with. I agree with MadBear and JellyPooga that in the end it's up to the group and the players. But in general, I've never found this type of stuff to add to the game, rather than take away, if it doesn't ruin it completely.

[Dr. Cliché]

Yes, because that is what the thread is about. I'm staying on topic, and given various other responses, this type of behavior is more common than you seem to think it is.

But, again, why did you quote me then? The thefts I spoke about were all minor and/or subtle. I wasn't talking about people stealing each others boots every night or some other waste of time along those lines.

By quoting me, you had to be referring to the same thefts I brought up. Hence, bringing up the theft of boots or sleeping rolls is a complete waste of time because I wasn't talking about such nonsense in the first place. All my comments in this thread have been based on the premise that the thief is taking stuff that is actually meaningful (i.e. money or magic items).

If you are talking only about thefts of boots, bedrolls and the like, then you might as well skip to the last few paragraphs of my post here (since the rest is based on the premise that you were talking about the same thefts I was).


I think you are reading my comments as if typed out by a machine. The in-character motivations are almost completely irrelevant to me, because stealing from other people this way is just disruptive to the game and bad etiquette as someone else mentioned. It is an OOC problem. The guy or girl might not be a douche, but I'm calling the behavior douchey.

I've highlighted the key word there. The fact that you don't care about the in-character motivations doesn't mean that no one else does either.



Nine times out of ten he will be right. I've *never* sat down at a game where one of the players had his character spend time in jail while the rest of us went adventuring because his stupid thieving antics were discovered and he got locked up and there wasn't a readily available way for him to escape immediately to rejoin the group. It's common for the thief to simply get away with it and for the game to carry on. The party doesn't split in-game, the players split out of game because fights occur and people don't like being robbed all the time.

Wait, are you talking about someone stealing from the party or from NPCs? If the latter, then I fail to see the issue in the first place. If the former, why is the party tolerating it and looking for jails? Chop his character's hands off or something and get the guy to roll a new character.



No, there is no difference. On the one hand, someone is complaining that he isn't allowed to steal from everyone.

Er, no, that's an outright lie. The thief isn't complaining that he isn't being allowed to steal from everyone. All he is doing is playing his character as a thief.


On the other hand, someone is complaining that the other guy is stealing from him.

Yes, this one is correct.


You're saying one should leave, I'm saying the other shouldn't steal.

And you don't have the right to tell that person not to steal in-character.

What you can't seem to grasp is that one person is just playing their character and the other is winging about that player playing their character. The thief is not complaining. The person being stolen from is.

To be clear, if the thief got caught by the party and then that player starts winging or sulking because the party lynched his character, I'd have no sympathy for him either.


You have no moral high ground here. Your position is less tenable, not more.

I don't recognise your authority to dictate who has the moral high ground. I also find it hilarious that you think there's such a thing as moral high ground in a debate about D&D.

And no, my position is perfectly tenable. If you are winging and sulking about IC stuff, then you are being far more of a pain than the person playing the thief. Hence, I am far more likely to boot your from the table rather than him.


You can say "sulk" and "whinge" all you want to belittle sane and rational people that don't want to play alongside a klepto, but it isn't fooling anyone.

I use sulk and winge because they seem like a perfectly accurate description of what you've said thus far. Literally all you've done is winged about people stealing from you in-character. And you've made no effort to see things from other view points. Nor have you looks for any kind of in-character solution or such. You've just complained that they shouldn't be allowed to do it because you personally don't like it.



This is completely untenable, and you know it. You know at some point, when your actions start impacting other players, they get to complain and say "stop that!"

Sorry, no, your emotions aren't the law. The fact that players doing something in character makes you unhappy does not give you the authority to order them to stop. By all means ask them, but understand that they have no obligation to do what you want.


But as per previous posts, you need to suspect him first. And given previous posts, this solution you propose does not go down so easily. Better to simply not take **** that doesn't belong to you.


"Oh, my boots have gone missing. Who could possibly have taken them. Could it possibly have anything to do with the kleptomaniac who steals everything that isn't nailed down. Well, I suppose it's possible that my boots just evaporated due to some quantum anomaly, but on reflection I think I'll have a few stern words with our rogue."

That aside, I agree with you. I think it is preferable not to steal from the party.

However, as I said, I'm also aware that not everyone shares my preferences and I have no intention of telling the other players at my table that they're having fun incorrectly by playing a thief who is willing to steal from the party. So long as they appreciate that most of my characters will not be best pleased with someone stealing from them and will probably not bother taking said thief through the courts.



Yeah, it's my opinion. The OP is asking for it.

So why did you quote me? :smallconfused:


I don't think people should play these types of characters, and I don't think people sit around the table to immediately start trying to figure out where their missing stuff went, knowing full well the idiot rogue has it, and now having to decide whether they want to put the time and effort into "suspecting" the rogue and then trying to get their stuff back and preventing future theft, or just playing the actual game they sat at the table to play in the first place.

Sure, I get that. But you are assuming that everyone else must feel the same way. Or, if they don't, they must still conform to your wishes.

What about players who love having some downtime to play around with their characters and interact with the party? Or who just enjoy roleplaying their characters' quirks (benevolent or otherwise)? Different people play D&D for different reasons and enjoy different aspects of it more.


You said that the intimidation and enchanting were worse than pickpocketing, and while I (just barely) agree, I was pointing out that the pickpocketing is still bad. It is disruptive. The example was to demonstrate how and why it is still not good. Yeah, the wizard might not be controlling your mind, but your actions are still under control of the thief to some extent because you have to deal with the theft in one way or the other.

I agree entirely that pick-pocketing isn't good. I wasn't aware that I'd argued otherwise. :smalleek:



Regarding suspicion, it was one of Jelly's points that a good rogue won't even be suspected in the first place. I've run across this in game as well, where before you can even accuse the rogue you need to justify why you suspect him in the first place. It's leads to a stupid blurring of OOC/IC where you start spending energy trying to contrive ways to catch the rogue, and if you don't, you just become easy prey for his antics.

Sure, I can see how that would be infuriating. But, in that case, shouldn't you have quoted Jelly instead of me?

I'd specifically said that I had no issue with people suspecting the rogue if their stuff went missing.



Again, I'm talking specifically about the kind of rogue in the OP, and the one that some of us have clearly had experiences with. I agree with MadBear and JellyPooga that in the end it's up to the group and the players. But in general, I've never found this type of stuff to add to the game, rather than take away, if it doesn't ruin it completely.

If it gets to the stage when the rogue is stealing all kinds of crap for the sake of it (your sleeping roll, the boots off your feet etc.), then yeah I can see that being a problem. I mean, I can maybe see the rogue stealing the fighter's boots *once* (if said fighter annoyed him that day), which could be quite funny. But if it's happening every night then, yeah, I can completely understand why people would get fed up.

As I said initially though, that was never the sort of theft *I* was talking about in this thread. From my initial post, I was referring specifically to thefts that were actually meaningful (basically money or magic items). I was never talking about characters just stealing random crap from other characters. Frankly, this is something of a novel idea to me. I've seen more than one player play a thief who'd steal gold from the party or secrete magic items for himself. However, I've yet to see someone who steals anything and everything from the party, seemingly in a desperate effort to waste everyone's time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I said initially though, that was never the sort of theft *I* was talking about in this thread. From my initial post, I was referring specifically to thefts that were actually meaningful (basically money or magic items). I was never talking about characters just stealing random crap from other characters. Frankly, this is something of a novel idea to me. I've seen more than one player play a thief who'd steal gold from the party or secrete magic items for himself. However, I've yet to see someone who steals anything and everything from the party, seemingly in a desperate effort to waste everyone's time.

I will say that if a player is playing a character who steals from the party (including taking an extra share of treasures discovered through party effort) without express, knowing consent from the entire rest of the party, they've failed at being a good player. From session 0. In any game I run, a player stating that their character takes an un-acknowledged extra share from the group will cause an OOC conversation. If the group is fine with it, the "theft" occurs. If not, the theft will not occur. If they try it again without permission, they will be asked to leave the game for being anti-social. Hasn't had to happen yet--worst has been one player that needed a warning about it being a group game.

Note: I define "party loot" as being anything discovered while the party is in the field. Period. Unless you're on a solo mission with the express consent (see that again? It's a theme) of the rest of the group, there is no such thing as individual loot.

Stealing from the party (again, without their explicit permission) will not happen. All the complaints about "I'm just playing my character" fall flat--you chose that character. Not only that, you chose that action. No one forced you to. Choose a different action or character trait. Same goes for any other blatantly antagonistic action toward party members. Grumble in-character all you want, but those actions will never be narrated into the shared universe.

[Dr.Samurai]

But, again, why did you quote me then? The thefts I spoke about were all minor and/or subtle. I wasn't talking about people stealing each others boots every night or some other waste of time along those lines.
Doctor, go reread the exchange. I think it's quite clear. I really don't understand the confusion you are having so I don't think I can help clear it up for you but I'll try.

By quoting me, you had to be referring to the same thefts I brought up. Hence, bringing up the theft of boots or sleeping rolls is a complete waste of time because I wasn't talking about such nonsense in the first place. All my comments in this thread have been based on the premise that the thief is taking stuff that is actually meaningful (i.e. money or magic items).
You said, and I quote:

"Furthermore, however much you may dislike it, he has a point - your character shouldn't be able to retaliate to a crime he isn't even aware of. Now, if something of his goes missing, he's well within his rights to suspect the thief and demand to search the thief's stuff. If the thief is stupid, he'll quickly be caught out and face the consequences. However, if he is able to magically hide the stolen item, then you can't just punish him because you know out of character that he did it (though you can remain suspicious and ask the wizard to watch him closely or somesuch)."

You referred to the thief taking something that belongs to the fighter. You are referring here to needing proof to take action (though suspicion is fine). You are referring to remaining suspicious and taking measures down the line to prevent future theft.

MadBear then replied that this comment you made that I just italicized demonstrates how it is the same thing as fighter intimidation and wizard enchantment. You replied that the latter two are worse. I then replied to that with my post, which hit everything you alluded to plus the bit about suspecting the rogue in the first place, which was more a point Jelly made. What is the problem here???

I've highlighted the key word there. The fact that you don't care about the in-character motivations doesn't mean that no one else does either.
I'm not making that point. You can have the best motivations in the world, with the deepest character ever created in the history of the human race. If it is infringing on another player, that player has room to complain and ask that you stop.

Er, no, that's an outright lie. The thief isn't complaining that he isn't being allowed to steal from everyone. All he is doing is playing his character as a thief.
Are you deliberately being coy here??? Presumably, if the player said stop stealing from me, and the thief wouldn't complain about this, the thief would simply stop? If so, what's the problem? If not, wouldn't the thief then be complaining that he isn't allowed to play his character? That's the exact thing you're suggesting, that I'm preventing someone from playing their character. That's a complaint that he can't steal from allies.

And you don't have the right to tell that person not to steal in-character.

What you can't seem to grasp is that one person is just playing their character and the other is winging about that player playing their character. The thief is not complaining. The person being stolen from is.
This is not a good point you're making. Other people in the thread have already demonstrated why "I'm just playing my character" is a terrible justification for being an asshat and annoying your fellow players. We can imagine all types of annoying stuff above and beyond *robbing* allies and just say "... but I'm playing my character!".

Again, untenable.

To be clear, if the thief got caught by the party and then that player starts winging or sulking because the party lynched his character, I'd have no sympathy for him either.
I'm not interested in tit for tat. I don't want to lynch your character. I just don't want to keep looking over my shoulder and making preparations against your inevitable thievery.

I don't recognise your authority to dictate who has the moral high ground. I also find it hilarious that you think there's such a thing as moral high ground in a debate about D&D.
It's a social game. People have to get along to play. And you're suggesting that in-character decisions that are antagonistic to other players are not up for discussion and everyone just has to deal with it or sod off or get booted from the game. You are arguing from a terribly weak premise. That the character you want to play trumps the experiences of all other players at the table.

I use sulk and winge because they seem like a perfectly accurate description of what you've said thus far. Literally all you've done is winged about people stealing from you in-character. And you've made no effort to see things from other view points. Nor have you looks for any kind of in-character solution or such. You've just complained that they shouldn't be allowed to do it because you personally don't like it.
Blah blah blah, you're a whiner, blah blah blah, you're a crybaby, blah blah blah, more name-calling to dismiss your comments, blah blah blah...

If I "personally don't like" my allies stealing from me, why should I have to put up with it Dr. Cliché? Let's unpack this. Let's move beyond you simply making me out to be tyrant that wants to dictate everything to everyone. Please help me understand why I should suffer from someone robbing me whenever they see fit, and having to deal with that in game by spending time looking for my stuff, asking party members if they've seen it, figuring out how to suspect someone, and who, trying to get my stuff back, etc. Why should I have to deal with all of that if I don't like it? What's the justification?

Sorry, no, your emotions aren't the law. The fact that players doing something in character makes you unhappy does not give you the authority to order them to stop. By all means ask them, but understand that they have no obligation to do what you want.
Lol, oh thank you. This whole time I thought I could just order people around and expect them to do what I say. You keep pretending that there isn't an element of pvp here. It's not that the player is "doing something in character [that] makes me unhappy". It's that the player is stealing from me. The only one taking the game too seriously is *you* when you say that no matter what I have to deal with your character's actions because that is the character you want to play.

What it seems to come down to is whether you think "this is how my character acts" is suitable justification for pvp behavior and infringing on other players in-game. I don't. I think there should be boundaries to keep the game moving along and avoid tension and worse around the table.

[JellyPooga]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".

[Honest Tiefling]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present?

I'd say that in a typical group, yes. Because the rogue only got as far as they did with everyone else. They probably weren't getting into the fortress on their lonesome, so the group did enable them to find the thing in the first place.

However, if groups WANT to play with a finder's free, I think a better way to go about it is to have a party charter of some type. So the idea that individual skills leading to a trophy of sorts would be agreed upon from the beginning, not someone deciding on the spot that this is how things are.

Again, I am of the opinion that if you enage in PvP, including theft, you can't complain when others do the same to you or suspect the sneaky thiefy guy they brought along. So unless there is an IC or OOC agreement, there is an element of rudeness involved in just taking things without prior IC or OOC talk.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".

For me, the distinction is if the rest of the party is part (even peripherally) in that particular adventure. If the rest of the party is back at the inn and the rogue is taking all the risk, then he gets all the reward. Same for the wizard. If the others share the risk (by fighting off the dungeon dwellers, etc), they get an equal share of the reward.

As a counter--what about XP? My policy--if a character would get XP (was present for the session's adventure), they get a share in any loot.

All of this is in the absence of a specific group policy of course. An individual group of players can negotiate a "finders keepers" policy if they want. That's on them. The default should be (and is if I'm the DM) that all those who share the risk share the reward.

[Sigreid]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".

It's entirely subjective. I've seen 2 types of players on this thread that probably shouldn't play together.

[Dr.Samurai]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".
I can certainly see the reasoning that the rogue has dibs on the gem. After all, no one else in the party would likely have discovered it and been able to procure it.

I agree with Honest Tiefling's and PheonixPhyre's take on it. Though with the XP bit, it's hard to parse I'd imagine if the rogue is up ahead and nothing is going on but he discovers a secret cache and bypasses a trap to find some loot. I don't think the others would get XP, but I still would feel the loot belongs to the party. Because you're adventuring together. As we speak, my pbp group is involved in a skill challenge, and I've failed both of my skill checks. So, not only am I not helping us succeed, I'm hurting our chances at success. I still think I'm privy to rewards though, because we're working as a group. As someone else mentioned, the rogue got to where he did because he's been with the party.

All that said, I can see the justification. It can certainly be a perspective the rogue can take in-game. It wouldn't be so far fetched, but I think OOC considerations take precedence over character.

EDIT: Sigreid, your sig is awesome!

[JellyPooga]

For me, the distinction is if the rest of the party is part (even peripherally) in that particular adventure. If the rest of the party is back at the inn and the rogue is taking all the risk, then he gets all the reward. Same for the wizard. If the others share the risk (by fighting off the dungeon dwellers, etc), they get an equal share of the reward.

As a counter--what about XP? My policy--if a character would get XP (was present for the session's adventure), they get a share in any loot.

All of this is in the absence of a specific group policy of course. An individual group of players can negotiate a "finders keepers" policy if they want. That's on them. The default should be (and is if I'm the DM) that all those who share the risk share the reward.

I guess my stance is that anything done "above and beyond" the norm shouldn't be subject to an even split. I suppose that's where the likes of party charters can come in handy (not that I'm a fan of them; they tend to feel a bit more like a metagame construct than something the characters themselves would do. Just my opinion though), to really nail down what does or doesn't go into the "even split" pot.

For me, the Bard that negotiates the better deal when bartering for the Fighters sword feels like he should get the money saved, rather than the Fighter, or at least some kind of recompense for acting on behalf of another. Similarly for the Rogue that finds the otherwise un-findable loot; perhaps he doesn't deserve to pocket the entire reward, but if I were the GM I'd look at it as the Rogue has taken the risk, the Rogue has successfully performed this task without the aid of the others. Getting to that point as a party has already been rewarded in loot and xp and the rest of the adventure will be similarly rewarded; but this is something extra the Rogue has done solo, so deserves the xp for it and at least the lions share of whatever rewards are within. Playing as the Fighter, I wouldn't expect xp for the Rogue finding the secret stash, so as that Fighter neither would I expect (let alone demand) an equal share of whatever he found.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess my stance is that anything done "above and beyond" the norm shouldn't be subject to an even split. I suppose that's where the likes of party charters can come in handy (not that I'm a fan of them; they tend to feel a bit more like a metagame construct than something the characters themselves would do. Just my opinion though), to really nail down what does or doesn't go into the "even split" pot.

For me, the Bard that negotiates the better deal when bartering for the Fighters sword feels like he should get the money saved, rather than the Fighter, or at least some kind of recompense for acting on behalf of another. Similarly for the Rogue that finds the otherwise un-findable loot; perhaps he doesn't deserve to pocket the entire reward, but if I were the GM I'd look at it as the Rogue has taken the risk, the Rogue has successfully performed this task without the aid of the others. Getting to that point as a party has already been rewarded in loot and xp and the rest of the adventure will be similarly rewarded; but this is something extra the Rogue has done solo, so deserves the xp for it and at least the lions share of whatever rewards are within. Playing as the Fighter, I wouldn't expect xp for the Rogue finding the secret stash, so as that Fighter neither would I expect (let alone demand) an equal share of whatever he found.

I understand (and can sympathize) with the reasoning, but that strikes me as unfair to those whose skill-sets don't allow in-mission solo parts. What can the Fighter/Barbarian/Cleric do to get that extra? Not much. I have no problem with downtime loot generation. If the rogue wants to go burglarize some houses while everyone else is chilling, he takes the risks and gains any reward.

Another thing--by going ahead and picking the lock, disabling traps, etc instead of doing the scouting like he's supposed to, the rogue is risking the party by delaying his report. Extra time spent, extra chance of getting caught, the risk of a trap blowing up in the rogue's face (or setting off an alarm). You have not only personal risk but mission risk. I think the best (party-centric) option would be for the rogue to report the presence of the hidden panel and collect it with the group once the need for stealth is passed.

[Honest Tiefling]

I guess my stance is that anything done "above and beyond" the norm shouldn't be subject to an even split. I suppose that's where the likes of party charters can come in handy (not that I'm a fan of them; they tend to feel a bit more like a metagame construct than something the characters themselves would do. Just my opinion though), to really nail down what does or doesn't go into the "even split" pot.

If the rogue takes risks to pocket loot when SCOUTING, then they are engaging in dangerous activity that might alert enemies just so they can pocket some shinies. They are sabotaging their own contribution to the group to get loot they don't have to share. If they went 'above and beyond' then they certainly picked an awful time to do it.

I don't think most parties would or should do this, but if some more neutral ones killed someone actively sabotaging their efforts and then started to fling their corpse down corridors to get traps I just wouldn't be surprised.

[Pex]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".

Yes, that's party loot. Everyone does their part. No treasure exists without the DM's permission. The DM placed the treasure for the party to find. The fun for the players is how they find it, but the rogue doesn't get extra just because he discovered a hidden compartment and found a gem while earlier the cleric Turned Undead destroying 12 skeletons but there was no treasure to be found in that hallway.

When it's downtime, everyone does their own thing, and the rogue player decides to burgle the house down the street and getting a small chest of jewelry that's worth 300 gp in total, yeah, that treasure is totally his even though the cleric got no treasure while tending to the sick and poor but he did get brownie points from his god and praise from the populace.

Edit: Same with the bard and wizard. They are doing their job using their talents as members of the party.

[MadBear]

So here's a question on a related point; if the Rogue is scouting ahead, finds a hidden panel, disarms the traps and unlocks the box to find a gem (or whatever), is it considered "party loot" if the rest of the party would not habe been able to get it without him being present? The same question could be asked of a Wizard divining the location of exremely well hidden loot or similar occurences like the Bard negotiating a better deal and pocketing the difference as a "negotiators fee".

I'm not trying to defend anything here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what might or mightn't be considered "party loot".

this post just reminded of this article:

https://morgulblade.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dd-sucks-part-2-the-rogue-class-exists/

[solidork]

Something else to consider: when it comes time to divide the treasure equitably, it seems perfectly reasonable for you to call dibs on anything that you personally found to be part of your equal share.

Honestly, if they found some hidden treasure and came back, told us about it and declared they were keeping it, my current group would probably just say 'Ok' and move on.

[druid91]

See, at least in my experience. The party isn't really a group. It's a bunch of mostly aligned individuals. Even distribution of treasure isn't guaranteed at all, unless we ICly make a party contract. Which has happened before.

In essence, the main factor keeping the party from acting like jerks to one another is the 'do unto others' aspect. You rob me blind? Ok. I ensure I'm in a position to do the same to you later on. Combined with the fact that we're better at surviving what the DM throws at us if we're all at least functional. So we all tend to chip in and at least make sure a PC has basic gear if they're lacking for whatever reason.

Generally, while there are times it goes too far. It's not really a problem because we go into it knowing that that can happen.

[Lombra]

Ok so I just finished a session. Our party defeated an hydra, and my monk decided to dive in the lake where the hydra lived asking everyone if they wanted to join the search of a kind of treasure, the paladin is the only one who accepted. The water was a bit murky, the paladin rolled a terrible perception check and in the end my character were the only one who noticed the bling at the bottom of the lake, I proceeded to dredge a mythril breastplate which went to our cleric-wizard, and some coins. The total that I managed to acquire is 60pp and 700gp, (and 500gp worth of jewels) my character is the only one who knows the exact amount of cash that he found, and since my character is not lawful good, he decided to split the loot as follows: 5pp and 20gp to the rest of the four party members. This means that he technically stealed 35pp and 600gp from the loot of the fight. All the players were aware of this and were absolutely fine with this, the DM even promoted the idea that because of how my character works, he would have likely not shared the loot. No anger between players and characters have no reason to argue about it.
Just a little thing that I wanted to share, because stealing (from, or out of the party) can be done in many ways, and when done right it works just fine.

[Pex]

See, at least in my experience. The party isn't really a group. It's a bunch of mostly aligned individuals. Even distribution of treasure isn't guaranteed at all, unless we ICly make a party contract. Which has happened before.

In essence, the main factor keeping the party from acting like jerks to one another is the 'do unto others' aspect. You rob me blind? Ok. I ensure I'm in a position to do the same to you later on. Combined with the fact that we're better at surviving what the DM throws at us if we're all at least functional. So we all tend to chip in and at least make sure a PC has basic gear if they're lacking for whatever reason.

Generally, while there are times it goes too far. It's not really a problem because we go into it knowing that that can happen.

How disappointing for you never to know the wonders of party cohesion instead of being individuals who just coincidentally happen to be fighting the same monster at the same time. A party working together does wonders.


Ok so I just finished a session. Our party defeated an hydra, and my monk decided to dive in the lake where the hydra lived asking everyone if they wanted to join the search of a kind of treasure, the paladin is the only one who accepted. The water was a bit murky, the paladin rolled a terrible perception check and in the end my character were the only one who noticed the bling at the bottom of the lake, I proceeded to dredge a mythril breastplate which went to our cleric-wizard, and some coins. The total that I managed to acquire is 60pp and 700gp, (and 500gp worth of jewels) my character is the only one who knows the exact amount of cash that he found, and since my character is not lawful good, he decided to split the loot as follows: 5pp and 20gp to the rest of the four party members. This means that he technically stealed 35pp and 600gp from the loot of the fight. All the players were aware of this and were absolutely fine with this, the DM even promoted the idea that because of how my character works, he would have likely not shared the loot. No anger between players and characters have no reason to argue about it.
Just a little thing that I wanted to share, because stealing (from, or out of the party) can be done in many ways, and when done right it works just fine.

Your table whatever. My table? Not done right at all. You all worked together to defeat the hydra. You all share the spoils. There was no need for everyone to search, and the paladin and everyone else should be punished out of treasure by you just because he rolled low on a d20? Alignment is irrelevant. That's just being a jerk, and I hate it when DMs enable such behavior. The first time I ever tried 5E the group, most of the players and DM, were just like this. I quit that group. Fortunately I've found other players who like being a party instead of individuals who coincidentally just happen to be attacking the same monster at the same time. I knew better the problem was the players, not 5E. I worry for brand new players who don't.

[druid91]

How disappointing for you never to know the wonders of party cohesion instead of being individuals who just coincidentally happen to be fighting the same monster at the same time. A party working together does wonders.



Your table whatever. My table? Not done right at all. You all worked together to defeat the hydra. You all share the spoils. There was no need for everyone to search, and the paladin and everyone else should be punished out of treasure by you just because he rolled low on a d20? Alignment is irrelevant. That's just being a jerk, and I hate it when DMs enable such behavior. The first time I ever tried 5E the group, most of the players and DM, were just like this. I quit that group. Fortunately I've found other players who like being a party instead of individuals who coincidentally just happen to be attacking the same monster at the same time. I knew better the problem was the players, not 5E. I worry for brand new players who don't.

See the problem with this attitude, is what reason is there for party cohesion to exist? At least right off the bat. You're a bunch of strangers banded together for some purpose or another. The idea that you should be perfectly dividing all loot that is ever found and that if you're not you're punishing the others is ludicrous.

They didn't find it. You did. You get to decide what's done with it. If they find it WITH you? You both get to decide what's done with it. So you're saying if I one shot the Hydra before anyone else can do anything, I deserve all the spoils?

Secondly. Character death is a thing. In our games. It's FREQUENTLY a thing. So anyone who's hoarding coin is generally going to lose it sooner or later, then the party picks over their corpse and finds it. Ultimately, money isn't really all that important in 5e. At all.

[Sigreid]

How disappointing for you never to know the wonders of party cohesion instead of being individuals who just coincidentally happen to be fighting the same monster at the same time. A party working together does wonders.



Your table whatever. My table? Not done right at all. You all worked together to defeat the hydra. You all share the spoils. There was no need for everyone to search, and the paladin and everyone else should be punished out of treasure by you just because he rolled low on a d20? Alignment is irrelevant. That's just being a jerk, and I hate it when DMs enable such behavior. The first time I ever tried 5E the group, most of the players and DM, were just like this. I quit that group. Fortunately I've found other players who like being a party instead of individuals who coincidentally just happen to be attacking the same monster at the same time. I knew better the problem was the players, not 5E. I worry for brand new players who don't.

It's only being a jerk if that's not the way the table wants to play. In our group, my character currently has his soul trapped due to some foolishness with a deck of many things. The same rogue that palms a gem now and then has consistently been all in with the idea of raiding hell to take it back from a great horned devil. He's always a reliable ally, just greedy. And frankly, none of our characters know about any of the palmed loot though none would be surprised to learn of it. What we know is that he's always got our backs. Not a problem for us.

[Pex]

See the problem with this attitude, is what reason is there for party cohesion to exist? At least right off the bat. You're a bunch of strangers banded together for some purpose or another. The idea that you should be perfectly dividing all loot that is ever found and that if you're not you're punishing the others is ludicrous.

They didn't find it. You did. You get to decide what's done with it. If they find it WITH you? You both get to decide what's done with it. So you're saying if I one shot the Hydra before anyone else can do anything, I deserve all the spoils?

Secondly. Character death is a thing. In our games. It's FREQUENTLY a thing. So anyone who's hoarding coin is generally going to lose it sooner or later, then the party picks over their corpse and finds it. Ultimately, money isn't really all that important in 5e. At all.

Strangers form a party because mystical letters of "P" and "C" on the forehead override realism. It's where metagaming is highly appropriate. You just choose to be a team.

Your game is made up of That Guy players and a Killer DM. Let's call it mutual appreciation we're not in the same playing group.

[JellyPooga]

Strangers form a party because mystical letters of "P" and "C" on the forehead override realism. It's where metagaming is highly appropriate. You just choose to be a team.

Nope. Just no. This does not fly for me. It's no more "appropriate" than using your knowledge as a player to use fire on a troll when your character has no way to know that. Not in my book. My Player Character is a character, not a gaming piece and the other characters he adventures with are characters too; if there's no reason for us to adventure together, then there's as little reason to play the game. Story is king at my table, not some hand-waved mumbling so we can get on with rolling dice to lower some arbitrary numbers to zero so we can uniformly increase some other numbers.

[sir_argo]

Strangers form a party because mystical letters of "P" and "C" on the forehead override realism. It's where metagaming is highly appropriate. You just choose to be a team.

I've had this discussion in my group before. The way I describe it is like this...

In a typical D&D world, there are probably hundreds of adventuring groups. And their experiences are not similar. Group #17 was six 1st level characters that wandered into the lair of a dragon that smoked them--they had no chance. Group #59 was a 15th level group that went on a quest, only to find out that the dungeon had already been raided by someone else. The spent the day going from empty room to empty room, and returned home with nothing. Group #88 was a bunch of 5th level characters that found themselves ambushed by a village of vampires. They're now just a bunch of blood dolls, locked in a basement. But we don't want to play those groups. We ask the DM if we can play group #54... the group that just happens to always have encounters that match their level, and find treasure that is appropriate. Why do we ask to play group #54? Because we want to have fun. Having another player steal from you isn't fun. It's a douche move. I have never sat down to make characters and had another player say, "Hey, y'know what would be fun? How about you make a thief and steal my stuff all the time. I'd really enjoy that." Another example is, "Hey, I want to make a sociopath who likes to kill people in their sleep. Hey guys, this will be fun... just be sure to make some back up characters 'cuz I'll be slitting all your throats. Don't get salty; I'm just roleplaying my character's personality." That's not roleplaying, that's just being a ****.

Everyone wants to have fun. Stealing from another player is only fun for the guy doing the stealing. The party with the guy who's stealing from his fellows is group #71. Nobody wants to play in group #71 because it isn't fun.

[Lombra]

Your table whatever. My table? Not done right at all. You all worked together to defeat the hydra. You all share the spoils. There was no need for everyone to search, and the paladin and everyone else should be punished out of treasure by you just because he rolled low on a d20? Alignment is irrelevant. That's just being a jerk, and I hate it when DMs enable such behavior. The first time I ever tried 5E the group, most of the players and DM, were just like this. I quit that group. Fortunately I've found other players who like being a party instead of individuals who coincidentally just happen to be attacking the same monster at the same time. I knew better the problem was the players, not 5E. I worry for brand new players who don't.

You are a good aligned person, and that's wonderful, I as a person am good and lawful too. Although that's not my character. What you are saying forces metagaming, I wouldn't be able to play a greedy character at your table this way. You as a person have a fantastic civic sense and want to reward each character equally, but in the games that I play characters have flaws, so sometimes stealing from the loot is just the most reasonable thing to do.

[Arial Black]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". This is how small groups work: families, kibbutzes, combat teams. You live or die together.

Ideally. Not every family is perfect. Some are downright disfunctional!

So the party fight together, risk their lives getting into the BBEG's castle. They used their abilities, different though they are, in harmony. No-one says "I refuse to use Sneak Attack because no-one else is using Sneak Attack so why should I?" Everyone contributes how they best can.

Why? Is it because everyone is lovely and perfect and rainbows and unicorns? Yes No! It's because the price of not doing so is death! The baddies will be much more likely to kill you.

So the rogue claims this loot for himself because no-one could steal it but someone with his skills.

Then the cleric gives the rogue (and everyone else) a bill for all the healing he doled out.

Then the fighter gives everyone a bill for all the damage he took that would've gone to the others if he hadn't risked his own life to stand between them and danger.

Then the wizard charges everyone a retainer for just being there; no-one else can do what he does, after all!

Then they either agree that they are a team of equals or they kill each other for non-payment of bills while the BBEG watches in bemusement.

In character, the rogue can be a douche if he wants to. This doesn't absolve the player of responsibility for douchey behaviour!

The thing that winds me up even more is that when the fighter strangles the rogue to get a pair of boots to replace the pair stolen (by the rogue! Even though the fighter doesn't know that) then the rogue's player will complain loud and long that the fighter and his player are being douches. Dude, you've already demonstrated that this kind of behaviour is acceptable and you want this kind of thing to happen in your games!

First, don't steal from the party.

Second, if you do steal from the party, you have no valid complaint when the rest of your party hang, draw and quarter you for gits and shiggles. If you can be a douche, so can they.

[JellyPooga]

Everyone wants to have fun. Stealing from another player is only fun for the guy doing the stealing. The party with the guy who's stealing from his fellows is group #71. Nobody wants to play in group #71 because it isn't fun.

Heh...the concept amuses me (as do your examples) and it may work for many groups, but this isn't my experience of D&D. In most games I've played the PCs are not "just another adventuring party"; adventuring parties aren't an in-game concept any more than the Fighter Class is.

Even assuming your premise is adopted, I still have a bit of a problem with it; I don't actually want to play in group #54. Group #54 sounds like an exercise in dice rolling and predictable encounters. Group #54 sounds dull. I'd rather be in Group #17 and at least have had a chance at talking my way out of an unwinnable fight.

As for Group #71...well, I disagree that stealing is only fun for the one doing the stealing. I've been the one stolen from and it didn't make the game less fun for me; it was just another roleplaying opportunity. "Bad Things" are allowed to happen to PCs; nothing in the book says that the PCs always have to "win"...there is no "winning" in D&D. Players can get thrown in jail, have their favourite toys stolen or destroyed, suffer all manner of calamities...even die. And that's fine. It's fun to deal with the adversity, that's (debatably) the point of D&D.

Now...who says that adversity must only come from the GM? Is the GM a "douche" for giving you a tough encounter or a little plot-related railroading? Do you think the GM should ask permission of the players before throwing them in the deep end of his death-trap dungeon? How about having an NPC steal from them? Does he need to ok it first, just in case it would "ruin their fun" to be stolen from?

The saddest thing I see when playing D&D is groups that have no interaction between one anothers characters. Is stealing from another character the best move as a team-player? Perhaps not, but at least it's an attempt to engage another PC in some kind of interaction. All too often PC's don't even talk to each other beyond curt orders and suggestions like "You go scout" or "Dude, kick it in the goolies".

Now, as for "having fun", I think there's a difference of opinion on what is "fun" that stems from a fundamental different view on the Player-Character divide. For me, my character isn't me. If something happens to my character, I don't take it personally. It's no more an infringement on my "fun" to be stolen from, hit with a stick or whatever, whoever does it to me. Yeah, my character won't like it and I'll have my character act appropriately, but that doesn't mean I, personally, have to dislike it. I mean, if I'm playing a board game and someone does something to me like steal some resources or kills some pawns, I don't get upset; same goes for roleplaying. It's a game we're all playing for mutual fun, not just me.

[Beelzebubba]

Strangers form a party because mystical letters of "P" and "C" on the forehead override realism. It's where metagaming is highly appropriate. You just choose to be a team.

Your game is made up of That Guy players and a Killer DM. Let's call it mutual appreciation we're not in the same playing group.

...as long as we all realize your way of playing elf games is correct! :smalltongue:

--

I mean, I've had those table dynamics turn out badly, but I've also had them turn out well. It depends on how good of friends everyone is around the table, vs. them not knowing each other well enough.

With really good friends, we laughed it off, because we played a LOT of games where we all tried to screw each other over a lot - like Great Dalmuti and Diplomacy.

If you don't have that level of friendship, yeah, totally avoid it. But that doesn't mean all tables that play that way are automatically 'That Guy' and 'Killer DM' like you say.

[Beelzebubba]

The thing is, the idea that the Rogue can just rob the party blind and never get caught just doesn't work out. There are a lot of valid, RAW in-game ways that behavior can be found out and dealt with.

Take a page from old school games - cursed items are so damn good for this. Invariably, the characters that hold back or keep things to themselves get hit by the curse because they didn't have the Wizard identify it.

And, for DMs, don't forget about Detect Magic - any time the Wizard uses it, it's perfectly valid to give them a Perception check to realize that Rogue who's holding back is lit up like a Christmas tree with items that weren't divvied up.

Oh, the rogue just steals money? Well, when they spend the money, every time they brandish those new items before the party, there's a chance for a Perception (with Int) check for someone to realize 'hey, wait a minute, that thing is worth more than they could possibly afford based on our take'. I'd roll privately behind the screen, and decrease the DC as the items get more expensive / powerful.

Or, tell the thief you will make secret Deception checks whenever they say how much they found and they're holding anything more than 10% back. Even with a great skill check, they'll flub it - and make the party suspicious. They see a pattern? Well, that Rogue sleeps eventually - and an out-of-earshot Silence spell, rifling through their bag, and dumping it all out at their feet followed by a group party discussion (and confiscation of the extra PLUS a cut) is a great way to dissuade that from ever happening again. (Don't tell me how I know this. It's just theoretical. :smallbiggrin:)

So, I can totally understand if you want to avoid it completely, and keep all the conflict outside the party - that's a valid game style, and probably for the best in a group of people that don't know each other - but for those who want to it, it can be fun to play it out, and the rules support it.

[Unoriginal]

Just TALK with your group. If they're ok with the characters stealing stuff from each others, it's ok. If they're ok with characters keeping the loot they personally find for themselves, it's ok.

And if they have no problem with it, but say that their characters probably will, then it's ok with it.

[Pex]

...as long as we all realize your way of playing elf games is correct! :smalltongue:

--

I mean, I've had those table dynamics turn out badly, but I've also had them turn out well. It depends on how good of friends everyone is around the table, vs. them not knowing each other well enough.

With really good friends, we laughed it off, because we played a LOT of games where we all tried to screw each other over a lot - like Great Dalmuti and Diplomacy.

If you don't have that level of friendship, yeah, totally avoid it. But that doesn't mean all tables that play that way are automatically 'That Guy' and 'Killer DM' like you say.

Actually, yes, that is the definition of That Guy and Killer DM. Some people happen to like that sort of thing, namely the That Guys and Killer DMs. I don't. If I get accused of badwrongfun syndrome because of it, this is one instance where I'm proud to have the label because I find it bad for the game. Play Paranoia if you want that sort of thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

A lot of people here seem to be playing D&D: Communist Edition. :smallconfused:

[Dr.Samurai]

If we're deviating a little from the klepto scenario, the question about the rogue finding something on his own has gotten me thinking about it some more...

I feel pretty strongly against splitting loot based on contribution. I think this is an added complication that isn't necessary and could damage player cohesion. No metric exists to determine how much someone contributes, and it just seems ripe for causing confusion and anger around the table. Plus, if the dice just happen to hate you one night, but you're fighting the big bad, it would suck to lose out on the treasure trove at the end just because you were rolling poorly. This method strikes me as against the spirit of the game, and I grimace at the thought of trying to calculate percentages for combat contribution and rewards. Seems like a petty level of detail to me.

That aside, if the party is strolling down a well beaten path, on the way to a delve let's say, and the rogue trips over something stuck in the dirt and uncovers a trinket worth a few hundred gold, I don't see why this would go to "the party". It seems to me that he just happened upon it by chance and it belongs to him. It's strange, but I feel like there's an unspoken rule that when you're adventuring and in the dungeon, so when the rogue would be actively using his skills, everything gets split evenly. But the idea that the rogue would also have to divvy up the trinket he finds just by happenstance, that suggests something much more formal to me. "The party" seems much more like an entity than before. So I'm not sure, but it's got me thinking.

My group back home simply can't handle stuff like this. I'd say only two of us (me and my best friend) can do it (if I do say so myself) because we don't have a problem being direct with people and expressing ourselves. The rest of our group are petty, vindictive, and quick to anger. If one of them steals, it just begins a cycle of escalation that occupies the rest of the efforts at the table and inevitably ends in someone storming off or the game essentially "resetting". The group goes through periods where no one is talking to each other or games are being run sporadically. But now, my friend is actually DMing SKT, and everyone is having a blast. This is the longest running game they've been in and there haven't been any major issues. I think, under him as DM, they could probably pull off some inter-party thieving, because he runs a much tighter and open game where intents and boundaries are known.

(For my part, it's more of a bandwidth issue. There's only so much to do in a four to six hour time block, and resolving your party thievery is simply not on the list of priorities for me.)

[Unoriginal]

Actually, yes, that is the definition of That Guy and Killer DM. Some people happen to like that sort of thing, namely the That Guys and Killer DMs. I don't. If I get accused of badwrongfun syndrome because of it, this is one instance where I'm proud to have the label because I find it bad for the game. Play Paranoia if you want that sort of thing.

What if everyone in the group has agreed to it and enjoys it?

Can't be That Guy if you're not being a bother to the group.

Also, Killer DMs how? No one is getting killed

[Dr. Cliché]

I feel pretty strongly against splitting loot based on contribution. I think this is an added complication that isn't necessary and could damage player cohesion. No metric exists to determine how much someone contributes, and it just seems ripe for causing confusion and anger around the table. Plus, if the dice just happen to hate you one night, but you're fighting the big bad, it would suck to lose out on the treasure trove at the end just because you were rolling poorly. This method strikes me as against the spirit of the game, and I grimace at the thought of trying to calculate percentages for combat contribution and rewards. Seems like a petty level of detail to me.

A question for you guys on similar lines - do you always split XP evenly or do you award XP based on what people's characters actually did?

e.g. if the party get split and ends up with 2 characters fighting one encounter and 2 other characters fighting a different encounter, would you just split the XP from those encounters across all party members or would you just split each encounter's XP across the members who were actually involved in it?

Likewise, do you ever award bonus XP for good roleplaying, impressive fears or any such?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A question for you guys on similar lines - do you always split XP evenly or do you award XP based on what people's characters actually did?

e.g. if the party get split and ends up with 2 characters fighting one encounter and 2 other characters fighting a different encounter, would you just split the XP from those encounters across all party members or would you just split each encounter's XP across the members who were actually involved in it?

Likewise, do you ever award bonus XP for good roleplaying, impressive fears or any such?

Pooled XP across the board for me*. I'd use inspiration for the good role-playing/heroics.

Why? Biggest reason is it's too much work for me for no real gain. Heck, I tend to default to story-based leveling instead of xp anyway. As a secondary motivation, I tend to encourage party-based thinking as I personally hate conflict/competition between real people.

[Pex]

That aside, if the party is strolling down a well beaten path, on the way to a delve let's say, and the rogue trips over something stuck in the dirt and uncovers a trinket worth a few hundred gold, I don't see why this would go to "the party". It seems to me that he just happened upon it by chance and it belongs to him. It's strange, but I feel like there's an unspoken rule that when you're adventuring and in the dungeon, so when the rogue would be actively using his skills, everything gets split evenly. But the idea that the rogue would also have to divvy up the trinket he finds just by happenstance, that suggests something much more formal to me. "The party" seems much more like an entity than before. So I'm not sure, but it's got me thinking.



Context here would matter. Since no treasure exists without the DM's permission, the rogue couldn't just by happenstance uncover a trinket. Of course it doesn't have to be the rogue. It could happen to anyone if it did happen. If this happens to everyone over the course of the several game sessions then it's no big deal. If it's just once, no big deal. If it's always one player I'd start suspecting the DM more than the player, allowing for the chance it's plot related. If the rogue is scouting ambushing a lone orc and takes his 3d6 silver pieces, I'm not going to quibble over that. The earlier scenario was different in that is was a secret panel the rogue found with a significant treasure item so it was a treasure the DM specifically placed as opposed to random lone orc #9. If the party fights an orc patrol darn straight I'd be upset if the rogue surreptitiously pockets the orc captain's 25 gp jewel laden dagger and coin pouch. He could have ended up with the dagger anyway if it was a known group treasure item but no one else wanted the dagger despite the jewel, which is likely to happen since the warriors use swords and axes and spellcasters use spells and wands, and he wouldn't have to compensate the gp difference.


What if everyone in the group has agreed to it and enjoys it?

Can't be That Guy if you're not being a bother to the group.

Also, Killer DMs how? No one is getting killed

Everyone can be a That Guy but just not be bothered by it. Killer DM is in reference to a particular comment.


A question for you guys on similar lines - do you always split XP evenly or do you award XP based on what people's characters actually did?

e.g. if the party get split and ends up with 2 characters fighting one encounter and 2 other characters fighting a different encounter, would you just split the XP from those encounters across all party members or would you just split each encounter's XP across the members who were actually involved in it?

Likewise, do you ever award bonus XP for good roleplaying, impressive fears or any such?

XP earned by one player does not take away XP earned by others. Context of why the party was split would matter. A bad guy placing a wall of force splitting the party does not mean splitting the XP. There are several scenarios where a party split could happen, but my preference would be XP given at the end of the adventure for the whole thing. Extra XP for good roleplaying is old school, which doesn't make it bad, but I prefer 5E's method of giving Inspiration.

[Unoriginal]

Everyone can be a That Guy but just not be bothered by it.

If you're not bothering anyone, you're not a That Guy.

[Sigreid]

A question for you guys on similar lines - do you always split XP evenly or do you award XP based on what people's characters actually did?

e.g. if the party get split and ends up with 2 characters fighting one encounter and 2 other characters fighting a different encounter, would you just split the XP from those encounters across all party members or would you just split each encounter's XP across the members who were actually involved in it?

Likewise, do you ever award bonus XP for good roleplaying, impressive fears or any such?

No xp tracking at all. The party levels up when the person DMing is ready for them to level up. Person DMing's character stays the same level as the rest of the party whether there character is being handled like a cohort or is off doing something else. Just better for everyone that way with rotating DMs.

[MadBear]

So I keep going back to this, because so many of the arguments for why you should be able to steal are poorly made.

Not many of us would be part of a party that's fighter threatened to break the arm of any member of the party that tried to stop them from taking extra loot. Not many would play with the wizard who used their spells to manipulate the party to give them extra loot, or the cleric who threatens divine retribution if the party doesn't donate all the loot to their local temple. And yet, those characters are completely valid concepts in character creation. We could come up with realistic backstories that explain why they are that way. And yet, almost none of those types of character concepts actually appear in the vast majority of games out there.

The only real difference between those character concepts and the thief, is that the thief can metagame to do take their unfair share in such a way that the characters wouldn't notice.

Every one of those instances are examples of characters that players are choosing to play that would be bad for party cohesion. And yet, we seem to be ok with the latter, and I suspect we wouldn't be ok with the former.

Let me ask this another way. If you're ok with the thief stealing, would you be ok with a divine school wizard who did the following. After every adventure, he waited until he rolled a low dice for his schools ability (the one that lets you replace a roll) and went up to your characters room at night and while talking to him alone cast suggestion, and then took 1/4 of your loot after a dungeon crawl. And he did this every time an adventure ended. (Keeping in mind that he's use his diviner ability to ensure you always failed the roll, and fell for the spell). How much would you enjoy playing with that character?

[Honest Tiefling]

Just a little thing that I wanted to share, because stealing (from, or out of the party) can be done in many ways, and when done right it works just fine.

Which is great! But I don't think anyone is arguing not to do that at a table where there is an understanding or talk about doing such things. People have different tables, which is a good thing.

The issue arises is that such actions are considered stealing by some, but not others. At a table with NO prior communication it can be seen as being akin to PvP or an action that should reasonably provoke PvP. And in some instances, very immersion breaking as the story might not support an untrustworthy ally.

A better question is, if the table had been upset at the theft, what would you have done?

[Sigreid]

So I keep going back to this, because so many of the arguments for why you should be able to steal are poorly made.

Not many of us would be part of a party that's fighter threatened to break the arm of any member of the party that tried to stop them from taking extra loot. Not many would play with the wizard who used their spells to manipulate the party to give them extra loot, or the cleric who threatens divine retribution if the party doesn't donate all the loot to their local temple. And yet, those characters are completely valid concepts in character creation. We could come up with realistic backstories that explain why they are that way. And yet, almost none of those types of character concepts actually appear in the vast majority of games out there.

The only real difference between those character concepts and the thief, is that the thief can metagame to do take their unfair share in such a way that the characters wouldn't notice.

Every one of those instances are examples of characters that players are choosing to play that would be bad for party cohesion. And yet, we seem to be ok with the latter, and I suspect we wouldn't be ok with the former.

Let me ask this another way. If you're ok with the thief stealing, would you be ok with a divine school wizard who did the following. After every adventure, he waited until he rolled a low dice for his schools ability (the one that lets you replace a roll) and went up to your characters room at night and while talking to him alone cast suggestion, and then took 1/4 of your loot after a dungeon crawl. And he did this every time an adventure ended. (Keeping in mind that he's use his diviner ability to ensure you always failed the roll, and fell for the spell). How much would you enjoy playing with that character?

First, no. Using your powers on my character like that isn't ok.

Second, we're talking two different things. In the cases where it happens in my group, the thief palming a little extra loot is pretty much doing it to fulfill his character concept of "greedy little bastard". He's not really doing it often, and he's not stealing enough to really impact the other characters very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions stealing 20-50gp worth of stuff out of thousands found. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial. And yes, it's completely fair game for anyone else to just take small value items that they find before the others become aware of it.

Personally, my last thief I played didn't do this. He wasn't super honest or anything, he just had complete confidence in his ability to steal anything he really wanted so actual wealth was pretty meaningless to him.

[Sigreid]

Which is great! But I don't think anyone is arguing not to do that at a table where there is an understanding or talk about doing such things. People have different tables, which is a good thing.

The issue arises is that such actions are considered stealing by some, but not others. At a table with NO prior communication it can be seen as being akin to PvP or an action that should reasonably provoke PvP. And in some instances, very immersion breaking as the story might not support an untrustworthy ally.

A better question is, if the table had been upset at the theft, what would you have done?

The only logical answer to your question is you don't do it if the other players are going to get bent over it.

[Kangodo]

I think a Rogue would count as surprised when he has his hands in the pocket of the Fighter.
That leaves the Fighter with two rounds to bash the rogue the moment the thief fails his check, shouldn't be that hard.

Stealing from your team is fine!
But don't even dare to whine when the party kills you the moment they find out.

[Laurefindel]

The only logical answer to your question is you don't do it if the other players are going to get bent over it.

I can get behind this

Not all metagaming is bad. I adjust my play depending on who is DM, and who is around the table. I only allow my character to be a jerk to other characters if I know the players well and that I know that the inter-party conflict is something they gonna enjoy.

Regardless of what the character does toward other characters, no player should be a jerk toward another player. Ever. That includes respecting their playstyle/preferences.

[Lombra]

Which is great! But I don't think anyone is arguing not to do that at a table where there is an understanding or talk about doing such things. People have different tables, which is a good thing.

The issue arises is that such actions are considered stealing by some, but not others. At a table with NO prior communication it can be seen as being akin to PvP or an action that should reasonably provoke PvP. And in some instances, very immersion breaking as the story might not support an untrustworthy ally.

A better question is, if the table had been upset at the theft, what would you have done?

If I knew beforehand how the players feel about in-game currency I would have restrained myself for the sake of having fun together, it's of no use to bother other players because your character wants more money, although it's of no use for the other players to get upset about it. One part sacrifices, and it's better if it's the individual rather than the group. Now this would never happen in my group because we are aware that we are playing a game and metagaming isn't really a thing for us, but I can understand that some others can find this upsetting.

[MadBear]

Let me start by again clarifying I'm only talking OOC justifications for the moment.


First, no. Using your powers on my character like that isn't ok.

but using the skills and expertise to steal from another character is ok? I mean, I know one is mundane and the other is magic, but in reality this is just a game, and were both using mechanics to get what we want. The fact is in both scenario's money is being unevenly distributed among party members.


Second, we're talking two different things. In the cases where it happens in my group, the thief palming a little extra loot is pretty much doing it to fulfill his character concept of "greedy little bastard". He's not really doing it often, and he's not stealing enough to really impact the other characters very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions stealing 20-50gp worth of stuff out of thousands found. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial. And yes, it's completely fair game for anyone else to just take small value items that they find before the others become aware of it.

Then consider my example amended. In this case, the wizard still casts suggestion on you, but he only does it to compel you to pay for his room,
food, and drinks. He does this because he can't be bothered to deal with peasants, and being a thief he figures you're low enough that making you do this isn't outside of your character. So in other words, he's doing this to fulfill his character's concept of "arrogant wizard who uses others to do his dirty work". I mean, were he's not really doing this to you often, and he's not doing it enough to really impact the you very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions making give up 2-10gp worth of stuff out of thousands gained in loot. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial.

[JellyPooga]

Then consider my example amended. In this case, the wizard still casts suggestion on you, but he only does it to compel you to pay for his room,
food, and drinks. He does this because he can't be bothered to deal with peasants, and being a thief he figures you're low enough that making you do this isn't outside of your character. So in other words, he's doing this to fulfill his character's concept of "arrogant wizard who uses others to do his dirty work". I mean, were he's not really doing this to you often, and he's not doing it enough to really impact the you very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions making give up 2-10gp worth of stuff out of thousands gained in loot. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial.

This example? Awesome! I love it. I would honestly have absolutely zero problems and would actively enjoy being "forced" to pay your Wizards way, as a player. It's low-impact, characterful and opens the possibility for further interactions. Great stuff.

The Wizard that you first described who abuses Portent, waiting for his rolls to be appropriate to force a failed saving throw? That guy I don't like so much, not because he'a stealing from me, but because he's intentionally using metagame knowledge/activity (i.e. "I keep rolling and don't do anything until I get the right roll") to achieve his desired goal. It's the metagame part that's bad here, not the coercion, because it feels more like a personal attack on me as a player than an in-character interaction. That would, of course, depend on how the player has gone about it; just the way you described this scenario makes it feel like a player trying to be antagonistic as a player, with little to no in-character justification.

Arm-breaker McGoo and friends? Yeah, I'll play with them and I'll enjoy it. It doesn't have to get petty, shouldn't even if you think about it; are you really going take petty revenge against the guy that's just threatened you into handing over your cash? Really? That dude is fricken' scary! That's why you gave him your purse in the first place. Back-off and keep your head down, the dude wants to break your arms so don't give him an excuse.

[Arial Black]

Now, as for "having fun", I think there's a difference of opinion on what is "fun" that stems from a fundamental different view on the Player-Character divide. For me, my character isn't me. If something happens to my character, I don't take it personally. It's no more an infringement on my "fun" to be stolen from, hit with a stick or whatever, whoever does it to me. Yeah, my character won't like it and I'll have my character act appropriately, but that doesn't mean I, personally, have to dislike it.

There is me the player, and there is my character.

You might think that what happens to my PC should not bother me. Even if I agreed (I don't) then the upshot is that my PC should react credibly when someone steals his stuff.

What's a realistic way for anyone to feel when their stuff is stolen? In my entire life I've never met anyone who was okay with having their stuff nicked. I've known plenty of people who would go absolutely postal! Including me!

So it's an accurate characterisation of my barbarian to react by being really, really bothered. So bothered in fact that he would happily kill anyone who he even suspected of stealing his stuff.

And who's the usual suspect? That's right: the thief. Whether the thief is the guilty party this time or not, he's gonna get killed, his stuff searched, and stolen merchandise will be found justifying my actions in my own eyes, which are the only eyes that count to my barbarian.

Completely in character, setting aside any metagame feelings.

When the douche player rolls up a new rogue, guess what? My barbarian takes an instant, in-character dislike to him. My barbarian kills the new rogue for 'looking at me wrong', a completely in-character reason.

The reality is that each player takes responsibility for the PCs he makes. If the PC is a douche, then the player cannot shrug helplessly when his PC steals from his friends and claims "That's what my character would do!" Of all the infinite characterisation possibilities, choosing to create a douche is a choice that you made. It is you who's being the douche.

"But being a 'douche' is a perfectly realistic characterisation. Plenty of people in real life are douches; look at me, for example!"

If playing 'realistically' is the prime directive, then the realistic response is violence. In history, how did the law treat thieves? A slap on the wrist? A smallish fine? No. Cut off a hand for the first offense. Cut of the other for a second. Death for a third offense (despite a grudging admiration for a pickpocket with no hands).

Or, in much more civilised times, stealing something worth a shilling got you Transported to Australia, the worst possible outcome for anyone!

But what generally happens in RPGs is that the douche player's douche rogue doesn't get a realistic, character driven response for his crimes because if the other PCs reacted realistically then the game ends with the PCs killing each other. Most people don't want to ruin their own game! The douche player knows this and relies on this to get away with his douchery.

[Dr. Cliché]

When the douche player rolls up a new rogue

And we're back to the assumption that any player whose character steals from the party must himself be a douche.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/818/hitlerbook.JPG

[Pex]

And we're back to the assumption that any player whose character steals from the party must himself be a douche.


Because he is. If we're going for realism, if any supposed friend stole from me in real life he wouldn't be my friend anymore. We would not be hanging out traveling to places together, so why should my character tolerate it? What do adventurers do to orcs and goblins who raid villages taking their stuff? What makes your character any different?

[JellyPooga]

There is me the player, and there is my character.

You might think that what happens to my PC should not bother me. Even if I agreed (I don't) then the upshot is that my PC should react credibly when someone steals his stuff.

What's a realistic way for anyone to feel when their stuff is stolen? In my entire life I've never met anyone who was okay with having their stuff nicked. I've known plenty of people who would go absolutely postal! Including me!

So it's an accurate characterisation of my barbarian to react by being really, really bothered. So bothered in fact that he would happily kill anyone who he even suspected of stealing his stuff.

And who's the usual suspect? That's right: the thief. Whether the thief is the guilty party this time or not, he's gonna get killed, his stuff searched, and stolen merchandise will be found justifying my actions in my own eyes, which are the only eyes that count to my barbarian.

Completely in character, setting aside any metagame feelings.

When the douche player rolls up a new rogue, guess what? My barbarian takes an instant, in-character dislike to him. My barbarian kills the new rogue for 'looking at me wrong', a completely in-character reason.

The reality is that each player takes responsibility for the PCs he makes. If the PC is a douche, then the player cannot shrug helplessly when his PC steals from his friends and claims "That's what my character would do!" Of all the infinite characterisation possibilities, choosing to create a douche is a choice that you made. It is you who's being the douche.

"But being a 'douche' is a perfectly realistic characterisation. Plenty of people in real life are douches; look at me, for example!"

If playing 'realistically' is the prime directive, then the realistic response is violence. In history, how did the law treat thieves? A slap on the wrist? A smallish fine? No. Cut off a hand for the first offense. Cut of the other for a second. Death for a third offense (despite a grudging admiration for a pickpocket with no hands).

Or, in much more civilised times, stealing something worth a shilling got you Transported to Australia, the worst possible outcome for anyone!

But what generally happens in RPGs is that the douche player's douche rogue doesn't get a realistic, character driven response for his crimes because if the other PCs reacted realistically then the game ends with the PCs killing each other. Most people don't want to ruin their own game! The douche player knows this and relies on this to get away with his douchery.

To be fair, your Barbarian killing my Thief on a suspicion alone is likely to draw censure from other players in the party, which rather negates the subsequent Thief being at risk for "looking at him funny"...I mean the difference between "I steal his dagger" and "I kill him because I know he's a Thief and my dagger happens to be missing" is fairly large. The party Paladin might have a thing or two to say to your Barbarian about rash actions, at the least!

And you do rather presuppose that your Barbarian is capable of killing the thief in the first place (:smallamused:), let alone whether anyone else might intervene before things go too far. Not every conflict need end with death (another assumption about D&D that I think really should stop being the norm).

I do agree, though, that in-character repurcussions can and should be harsh and the Anything-and-Everything Thief shouldn't be hiding behind his PC status...which is at least part of the reason why that particular player is a problem. I'll say it again though, that player isn't a problem because he's stealing from the party; he's a problem because he's a problem player. If he was playing a Paladin or a Wizard, it's very likely that he'll still be a problem.

Yes, stealing is a douche move, but if you're playing a thief, that goes with the territory; criminals aren't particularly well known for being upstanding citizens. You want a thief in the party? Accept that he may well pull a few douchey moves, because, well...he's a crook. Don't want a thief in the party? Good luck finding someone with the same skillset that isn't a crook (which isn't to say those characters don't exist, but if we're talking "classic" D&D, the Thief is the archetypal 4th member of the party).

[Delicious Taffy]

Wow, this got nasty in a hurry.

If you're not in a group that's okay with PCs jacking each other's possessions, don't play a character who would do that sort of thing. Just because it's everyone's game, that doesn't mean anyone can do whatever they want. If you want to be the guy who steals from your allies, do make sure you're in a group that's okay with it. As for the idea of a character who just steals anything and everything, that's also something you should run by the rest of the group. If they're not alright with it, that isn't a problem.

[Lombra]

Oh boy common sense slips away unnoticed in these discussions.

[Dr. Cliché]

Because he is.

No, sorry, that is simply not true.


If we're going for realism, if any supposed friend stole from me in real life he wouldn't be my friend anymore.

But he's not stealing from *you*. His *character* is stealing from your *character*.

You do understand how a role-playing game works, right?


so why should my character tolerate it?

First off, this is an entirely different matter to your original point. Characters do not equal players.

Second, I never once said that your character *should* tolerate it. I never once said that your character should be happy travelling with a known thief. If anything, I said the exact opposite - that I'd completely understand if the other characters caught the thief stealing from them and decided to kill him, cut of his hands or somesuch.


What do adventurers do to orcs and goblins who raid villages taking their stuff? What makes your character any different?

Again, you are implying that my position is the opposite of what it actually is.

As I've said - multiple times now - I don't have any issues with the party handing out 'frontier justice' if it catches one of its members stealing from the others.

What I object to is the idea that anyone who chooses to play an unpleasant character must himself be an unpleasant person.

[Beelzebubba]

Because he is. If we're going for realism, if any supposed friend stole from me in real life he wouldn't be my friend anymore. We would not be hanging out traveling to places together, so why should my character tolerate it? What do adventurers do to orcs and goblins who raid villages taking their stuff? What makes your character any different?

Because the game isn't 'myself as a stand-in playing', it's 'role playing'.

And people who take these things really personally can't possibly believe that anyone else doesn't get as incredibly morally indignant, and continue to beat threads to death as if their way to play silly magic elf games is the only way to play.

Seriously, do yourself a favor. Realize that everyone else here isn't you.

[Delicious Taffy]

Oh boy common sense slips away unnoticed in these discussions.

This is usually the case, yeah. People would rather continue addressing every single segment of someone's response than pay attention to the ones giving concise answers to a not-so-complex problem. Half the time, it ends up feeling like everyone is effectively arguing the same point, but they're reading so much into each other's comments, it still feels like disagreement to them.

[Dr.Samurai]

MadBear gave a great example with the wizard's Portent ability. It is spot on. If someone were to complain about the wizard using his features and spells to steal from the party "Dude, you're using mind control on my character to force him to give you his loot!!!", I'm *HIGHLY* skeptical that people would jump to the defense of the wizard with "He's just playing his character's greedy nature... You don't know that he did that because you failed your save, stop metagaming... Don't be a whiner, it's not a big deal, it's trivial..."

The "greedy thief" trope needs to die. It's so annoying. I'm a rogue, therefore I'm a thief, therefore I will steal from you, therefore I have made an interesting character. *rolls eyes*


First, no. Using your powers on my character like that isn't ok.
The amount of loot stolen aside, what is the significant difference you are seeing between this wizard and the rogue thief?

Second, we're talking two different things. In the cases where it happens in my group, the thief palming a little extra loot is pretty much doing it to fulfill his character concept of "greedy little bastard". He's not really doing it often, and he's not stealing enough to really impact the other characters very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions stealing 20-50gp worth of stuff out of thousands found. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial.
Well, sure, if we reduce the theft to "trivial" amounts so that it doesn't matter, and assume that the group not only doesn't mind but thinks it's the best roleplaying they've ever witnessed, then yeah, it's not a problem lol.

And yes, it's completely fair game for anyone else to just take small value items that they find before the others become aware of it.
This is less a general comment and more a personal preference but... I don't like answers like this. Along with answers like "yeah, he can steal from you, and you can chop his hands off, or kill him". It just seems like such a waste of time. You rolled up a character and came up with a backstory that includes "will steal from party". We get the game going, start adventuring, then you steal stuff from us, and now we have to resolve that and I... kill you? Chop your hands off? Now what? You roll another character up?? Do we adventure with one man down? No trapfinder? Are you okay that I killed your character? Are you okay rolling up an entirely new character? Will it be another thief? If so, are you going to steal from us again and repeat this cycle? If not another thief, are we down a skill monkey now?

It's seems so incredibly pointless to open up this avenue of pvp. By the admission of theft-proponents in this thread, retaliation is fine and the better way to handle this scenario in game (as opposed to "whining" about it out of game). And that to me just doesn't seem helpful, or fun, or the point of playing.


This example? Awesome! I love it. I would honestly have absolutely zero problems and would actively enjoy being "forced" to pay your Wizards way, as a player. It's low-impact, characterful and opens the possibility for further interactions. Great stuff.
I'm curious why you put "forced" in quotes. You *are* being forced. I'm also curious at what point you would "allow" yourself to tell the wizard he is infringing on your character. Like... what is the line for you that can't be crossed? It seems that theft is very trivial for some of you, and you believe we're exaggerating the problem to some extent. And it seems that even this use of suggestion to rob you is not only not an issue for you, but you actually like it a lot.

What does the wizard have to do where you believe you'd react the way I'm reacting, where you would say "Hey, I know that's the character that you want to play but I don't want you doing that to my character."?

The Wizard that you first described who abuses Portent, waiting for his rolls to be appropriate to force a failed saving throw? That guy I don't like so much, not because he'a stealing from me, but because he's intentionally using metagame knowledge/activity (i.e. "I keep rolling and don't do anything until I get the right roll") to achieve his desired goal. It's the metagame part that's bad here, not the coercion, because it feels more like a personal attack on me as a player than an in-character interaction. That would, of course, depend on how the player has gone about it; just the way you described this scenario makes it feel like a player trying to be antagonistic as a player, with little to no in-character justification.
I'm not really seeing the difference. His Portent informs him of his chances. It's not metagaming. It's certainly not as metagamey to me as treating the game like Skyrim and picking every pocket and lock you come across. His ability tells him tonight will be a good night to use Suggestion on the fighter.

Arm-breaker McGoo and friends? Yeah, I'll play with them and I'll enjoy it. It doesn't have to get petty, shouldn't even if you think about it; are you really going take petty revenge against the guy that's just threatened you into handing over your cash? Really? That dude is fricken' scary! That's why you gave him your purse in the first place. Back-off and keep your head down, the dude wants to break your arms so don't give him an excuse.
But what if he *does* break your arm? Is it still enjoyable? Are you ok with playing with a handicap like a broken arm? If not, then aren't your actions being dictated by the threat of a broken arm?

What I object to is the idea that anyone who chooses to play an unpleasant character must himself be an unpleasant person.
The complaint isn't about a crotchety character.

[Dr. Cliché]

MadBear gave a great example with the wizard's Portent ability. It is spot on. If someone were to complain about the wizard using his features and spells to steal from the party "Dude, you're using mind control on my character to force him to give you his loot!!!", I'm *HIGHLY* skeptical that people would jump to the defense of the wizard with "He's just playing his character's greedy nature... You don't know that he did that because you failed your save, stop metagaming... Don't be a whiner, it's not a big deal, it's trivial..."

You seem to be conflating players with characters.

In terms of players, I wouldn't complain if someone chose to play their wizard that way. Nor about the fighter Madbear mentioned who would try to intimidate the other party members into giving him a greater share of the loot. The latter in particular seems perfectly in character for a greedy barbarian or fighter.

It might irk some players that the wizard is actually using resources against the party (since he's now down 1 lv2 spell and also a low-roll which he could have used to make a powerful foe auto-fail his save), though that's a different matter.

Anyway, in terms of actual characters, most are liable to be rather unhappy about the wizard or fighter attempting to steal their loot in some manner and could well plot against them or simply openly attack them (if the fighter tries to intimidate the entire party, he's almost certainly going to be outnumbered about 3:1). The wizard might be a bit harder to catch, but is also the most likely to suffer a brutal death if anyone finds that he's been playing with their minds.

The point I'm trying to make is that many players (myself included) probably would defend the player playing the wizard/fighter/thief trying to get extra shares of the loot by some underhanded means. However, neither us nor our characters are likely do defend those characters if and when they get caught.


The complaint isn't about a crotchety character.

I didn't say it was. :smallconfused:

[Dr.Samurai]

You seem to be conflating players with characters.
I'm not. I think I'm failing to explain to you and others that playing a character this way might (and usually does from my own experiences and others shared here) anger the player of the character you're stealing from.

As has been mentioned before, this is an OOC problem.

Justifications like "that's his character", "you can steal back", "chop his hands off", "it's not that much and he gives to charity" fail to acknowledge that the *player* of the character you are robbing does not want to be the target of your thieving.

"Hey man, could you not cast Suggestion on me at night and force me to give you my loot?"

"Oh, don't worry about it. Your character doesn't really mind. Actually, he doesn't even know so it's all good."

"Yeah, but *I* don't want you to do it. You're stealing my loot that I rightfully earned."

"Oh, I see the real problem now. You're conflating yourself with your character. Don't do that, and problem solved."

The point I'm trying to make is that many players (myself included) probably would defend the player playing the wizard/fighter/thief trying to get extra shares of the loot by some underhanded means.
I think I understand that. That's the point of this discussion. Some of us think this "style" of play isn't justified, and you and others do.

Judging by your previous posts, I don't think you'd defend the player complaining that he is being robbed, and I'm not sure how you determine one is more right than the other.

However, neither us nor our characters are likely do defend those characters if and when they get caught.
I expect that to be the case, which is why the thievery is so tiring. It's an inevitable conflict for no more reason than "I'm playing a rogue so I should be stealing from you". In the same way you can just assume here that *any* character won't defend the theft, we just assume that rogues will steal.

I didn't say it was. :smallconfused:
It seems like you're using a euphemism when you say "unpleasant" character. He's not unpleasant. Unpleasant would be someone that belches all the time or picks his nose and wipes it on the tent flap. We're talking about stealing.

[JellyPooga]

I'm curious why you put "forced" in quotes. You *are* being forced. I'm also curious at what point you would "allow" yourself to tell the wizard he is infringing on your character. Like... what is the line for you that can't be crossed? It seems that theft is very trivial for some of you, and you believe we're exaggerating the problem to some extent. And it seems that even this use of suggestion to rob you is not only not an issue for you, but you actually like it a lot.

There is no line because it's not personal. I'm not stealing from a player, the Wizard isn't casting Suggestion on me and the Fighter isn't breaking my arms. These are all things happening to characters in a game. They're all opportunities for me to play my character and my fellow players to play theirs in a variety of different scenarios. I'm just as happy to play a character with a broken arm whether it was the party Fighter (where I might sullenly "fall into line" and do as he say), a fall off a cliff (where I'd curse my luck at such a crippling mishap) or a bad-guy did it (where I might grit my teeth and try to valiently power on to defeat him).

I'll make the comparison to the NPC thief again; what's different about an NPC stealing from the party and a PC doing it? The consequences of the latter are a little closer to home, but that can be the entire point of the exercise. Imagine the GM gave you a note in a game, reading simply; "During your down-time, a reliable informant tells you that there is a traitor in your midst". Is this a positive or negative addition to your game? Are you going to get upset because all of a sudden there's some doubt as to whether your so-called friends can truly be trusted, or are you going to enjoy the experience of playing a game where you don't have the safety net of being assured of your companions loyalty to the cause? Why is it different if the GM casts that doubt or another player?

I'll say it again; whatever happens in-character is fine by me, so long as it a) makes sense in-character, b) isn't due to metagaming and c) isn't a personal attack (or retaliation) on me as a player.


I'm not really seeing the difference. His Portent informs him of his chances. It's not metagaming. It's certainly not as metagamey to me as treating the game like Skyrim and picking every pocket and lock you come across. His ability tells him tonight will be a good night to use Suggestion on the fighter.

Perhaps it was just the way I read it that made it sound metagamey. I'm willing to concede that it's no more matagaming than the thief knowing he has a high SoH modifier.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm not. I think I'm failing to explain to you and others that playing a character this way might (and usually does from my own experiences and others shared here) anger the player of the character you're stealing from.

Sure, I get that.

But what I'm trying to explain is that your emotions aren't law. The fact that the actions of another player's character makes you angry doesn't give you any moral authority to order that player to stop.



Justifications like "that's his character", "you can steal back", "chop his hands off", "it's not that much and he gives to charity" fail to acknowledge that the *player* of the character you are robbing does not want to be the target of your thieving.

But that's the thing, the character getting stolen from does not have a say in the matter. He does not get to decide the outcome of every action that affects his character. If he wants that, tell him to go write a novel instead.:smallwink:

I mean, Players can also get angry when their character rolls a 1 on a save or skill check or falls into a trap. It doesn't mean they can just rewrite reality to suit their whims.


"Hey man, could you not cast Suggestion on me at night and force me to give you my loot?"

"Oh, don't worry about it. Your character doesn't really mind. Actually, he doesn't even know so it's all good."

"Yeah, but *I* don't want you to do it. You're stealing my loot that I rightfully earned."

"Oh, I see the real problem now. You're conflating yourself with your character. Don't do that, and problem solved."


And this is exactly why I think OOC "solutions" are stupid, because it amounts to one player trying to tell another player not to play his character.



I think I understand that. That's the point of this discussion. Some of us think this "style" of play isn't justified, and you and others do.

Sure, I can understand that.


Judging by your previous posts, I don't think you'd defend the player complaining that he is being robbed, and I'm not sure how you determine one is more right than the other.

Well, for a start, I'm not a fan of removing the agency of characters. I don't like the idea of saying that, regardless of their character traits, they're never allowed to steal from the party or do anything else that might endanger them. I actually think it can be more interesting when some members of the party don't get along too well for one reason or another.

That aside, it's less about which player is "right" and more about which player is being most disruptive to the game. Since we are dealing entirely with hypothetical it's rather hard to make any sort of call on this. I am more than willing to reprimand either the thief or the person being stolen from, depending on circumstances.

What I was trying (and perhaps failing) to get across in earlier posts was that I wouldn't kick someone purely because their character stole something from someone else's character. The victim's character may have the moral high ground in-game, but that doesn't give him the moral high ground as a player, if you see what I mean. Hence, I would be more than willing to kick him instead if I felt that he was the one causing trouble by refusing to accept that anything bad could happen to his character.



I expect that to be the case, which is why the thievery is so tiring. It's an inevitable conflict for no more reason than "I'm playing a rogue so I should be stealing from you".

Maybe our respective groups play different styles of D&D, but I've never seen anyone at my table trot out their class as an excuse for their actions. :smalltongue:


In the same way you can just assume here that *any* character won't defend the theft, we just assume that rogues will steal.

Eh, that seems a bit too meta for my tastes.


It seems like you're using a euphemism when you say "unpleasant" character. He's not unpleasant. Unpleasant would be someone that belches all the time or picks his nose and wipes it on the tent flap. We're talking about stealing.

Unpleasant - "causing discomfort, unhappiness, or revulsion; disagreeable."

Seems like a reasonable description of a thief to me. :smallconfused:

Regardless, no, I wasn't trying to use a euphemism or play down the theft.

[EvilAnagram]

I think you are fundamentally missing the doctor's point, Doctor. You see, Doctor, the doctor is saying that while this is a game in which we assume the roles of characters, it is also a game in which we socialize with others, and this means that for the game to be successful the group must agree to certain norms of behavior to ensure that everyone enjoys themselves and engages with the game.

If the group decides that robbing each other is not fun, then whining about needing to play your character according to his motivations is meaningless because your character is introducing real tension into the group. You could, after all, make a character who loves killing and kill all your party members in their sleep, but that would render the game unfun for everyone else. You decide your character's motivations, and your character's motivation should serve the purpose of having fun with your friends, and if it doesn't then you're being a jerk.

If stealing from each other is fun for your group, great! If it isn't, don't be a jerk.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think you are fundamentally missing the doctor's point, Doctor. You see, Doctor, the doctor is saying that while this is a game in which we assume the roles of characters, it is also a game in which we socialize with others, and this means that for the game to be successful the group must agree to certain norms of behavior to ensure that everyone enjoys themselves and engages with the game.

Well, everyone except the ones who aren't allowed to play the characters they want to. :smallconfused:


If the group decides that robbing each other is not fun, then whining about needing to play your character according to his motivations is meaningless because your character is introducing real tension into the group.

Why is the assumption that "the group" must always be against in-character stealing? Perhaps most of them are either fine with it or indifferent to it. Now, the single person winging and sulking about theft is the one at fault and the one who needs to change his attitude.


You could, after all, make a character who loves killing and kill all your party members in their sleep, but that would render the game unfun for everyone else.

You could, but I'd hardly put it in the same category as stealing. :smalltongue:


You decide your character's motivations, and your character's motivation should serve the purpose of having fun with your friends, and if it doesn't then you're being a jerk.

Or, you know, people could get off their high horses and stop trying to tell others that they're having fun incorrectly.

[Delicious Taffy]

Nobody is on any high-horse about in-game theft between players. The only thing being said about it is that maybe the other players don't want that to be part of the game. If you want to play a character who would steal from his own group, that's not the problem. The problem comes from feeling entitled to play any character you want, regardless of whether that character works with the others or not. The campaign is for everyone, not just the one guy who wants to play a backstabbing traitor.

If your fellow players are alright with roleplaying the aftermath of their travelling companion robbing them, that's perfectly fine and a good time can be had from it. If they're not, then there's no justification for robbing them, and you don't have a valid reason to be upset. You don't just get to play whatever character you feel like and insist anyone who doesn't like that character is robbing you of your agency. That's called being an entitled brat, and nobody wants to play with the guy throwing a hissy over not being allowed to pretend-burgle his friends' fictional avatars.

You wouldn't bring a baseball bat to a tennis game and then get mad when the other players tell you to use a proper racket.

[Arial Black]

Or, you know, people could get off their high horses and stop trying to tell others that they're having fun incorrectly.

It's a game where the players are on the same side. If one player gets their 'fun' by stopping the other players having theirs, then yes he's having fun incorrectly.

We live in a free country, right? I can swing my arms about any way I want. I can do what I want.

But as a society we've created laws that include the idea that in a free society we can do whatever we want except prevent other people from enjoying their freedom.

Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. I'm not 'curtailing your freedom' by not allowing you to punch me.

Also, the idea that just because a PC has levels in the Rogue class--even the thief subtype--means that we should expect them to steal from their allies is unrealistic and childish. It's not even how real criminals behave. They don't generally steal each other's stuff on a whim for a laugh because the consequences for them doing so are so serious.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not. I think I'm failing to explain to you and others that playing a character this way might (and usually does from my own experiences and others shared here) anger the player of the character you're stealing from.

As has been mentioned before, this is an OOC problem.


If the players are *fine* with other players' characters trying to steal or cheat them out of their money, is it a problem?


It's a game where the players are on the same side. If one player gets their 'fun' by stopping the other players having theirs, then yes he's having fun incorrectly.


And what if the player isn't stopping the others from having fun?

[Delicious Taffy]

If the players are *fine* with other players' characters trying to steal or cheat them out of their money, is it a problem?

And what if the player isn't stopping the others from having fun?

As has already been stated, if the other players are fine with the stealing, then there's no problem. Nobody is arguing that no stealing should ever be allowed, ever, under any circumstances, even if everyone is okay with it. What's being said is that the other players need to be okay with the stealing in the first place. Once it's been made clear that all parties are down with it, everything is fine and dandy.

The thing that's being argued against is the idea that one player should be able to just do as they please, and is also somehow being wronged if the other players aren't having fun with that. The idea seems to be that the other players are the ones trying do dictate how the thief is allowed to have fun, when it's really the other way around. And let's suppose the other players really are the ones dictating the direction of the game, with this guy as the only holdout? Why is everyone else somehow in the wrong, and the guy whining that he doesn't get to do whatever he wants is somehow in the right?

I'm not saying that's exactly what's being said, but it does seem that way, and if it's not, then clarity is needed.

[EvilAnagram]

Well, everyone except the ones who aren't allowed to play the characters they want to. :smallconfused:
If someone can only find enjoyment playing a character that causes real world drama in that group, then that individual is a bad fit for that group.



Why is the assumption that "the group" must always be against in-character stealing? Perhaps most of them are either fine with it or indifferent to it. Now, the single person winging and sulking about theft is the one at fault and the one who needs to change his attitude.
I did not make that assumption. I couched my terms in conditionals. If the group is okay with stealing, but one player is not, then that player needs to talk to the group and see if it's right for him.



You could, but I'd hardly put it in the same category as stealing. :smalltongue:
Why? Both stealing and killing are criminal acts that cause conflict between PCs and can cause real world drama as well.



Or, you know, people could get off their high horses and stop trying to tell others that they're having fun incorrectly.
Part of operating in a social sphere is adjusting your behavior to benefit the group. If you are not willing to adjust your behavior to get along with the group, perhaps social games are not for you.

[JellyPooga]

Heh, reading back a little, I find it somewhat amusing that by and large both sides of this argument are firing off the "talk to your group and see if it's cool" line, while simultaneously defending their position as if the other side were firmly entrenched and unmoving (and I don't except myself from being guilty of just that).

In some kind of attempt to recap the thread a bit, here's what I gather;

1) Some people are ok with (essentially) PvP.

2) Others are not.

3) Some people view all treasure acquired during an adventure as rightfully being "party loot".

4) Others do not.

5) The definitions of "theft" and "stealing" are not as straightforward as I (at least) thought. Largely because of points (1) through (4).

6) A number of players view attacking or even straight up murdering a party member as an appropriate (if not the only worthwhile) retribution for (the, as previously mentioned, ill-defined) theft from the party.
6a) This is held by some as a defence of (2).

7) Problem players are a problem.

8) We all agree that players should talk to their group before creating characters and deciding the game style.

Does that about sum things up? Have I missed any salient points?


For myself, it seems like point (5) is what's causing the most crossed wires here because the OP isn't talking about theft; he's really talking about point (7). So there have been people discussing all eight of the above points, but the guy arguing (7) is being rebutted by someone arguing (5), who's being brought up on point (3) and so on and so forth. All told, I think this debate has gotten more heated than was really necessary, but it's been entertaining nonetheless!

[JellyPooga]

It's a game where the players are on the same side.

This is not true.

D&D is not "Players vs. GM", it's "Players and GM". The Players don't have to be "on the same side" any more than the GM has to actively try to get his Players killed, or a single dragon (or dungeon, for that matter) need appear in an adventure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is not true.

D&D is not "Players vs. GM", it's "Players and GM". The Players don't have to be "on the same side" any more than the GM has to actively try to get his Players killed, or a single dragon (or dungeon, for that matter) need appear in an adventure.

But playing that way is well outside the norm. I'd be willing to bet (although I admit that I don't have hard numbers) that a vast majority (60+%) of D&D sessions involve the players' characters as acting together against outside threats and cooperating. I'd also be willing to bet that the closest most of the rest get to actual intra-party antagonism is hidden motives or verbal sniping. Truly antagonistic player characters usually signal the end of an otherwise cooperative campaign rather than being a campaign premise.

One reason that might be is that if the party is truly irreconcilably at odds, they're going to be running what amount to N (the number of players) different single-player adventures. That's hard on a DM. Also makes it hard to avoid the appearance of favoritism and unequal spotlight which are other campaign-killers. Not impossible, mind, but difficult.

As I see things, cooperation is the norm. That's what the baseline rules assume and directly support. Those who wish to deviate from the norm need specific, knowing (I'd even throw in enthusiastic) permission from the rest of the group. If the group refuses or balks and that steps on your character concept, stop being such a special snowflake and choose one of the millions of other character concepts that play nice with others. Or go elsewhere. There is no right to play a character concept. Heck, there's no right to play at all.

[SpoonR]

:Looks at thread
:Blinks
:Checks link address, looks back at thread.
:smallconfused:

Really? 6 pages about this on GiantITP of all places? Haley, Belkar, and V would like a word with you. It is just a social contract thing. I've played in games ranging from "no party stealing ever," through to somewhere around "gold is cheap, but don't steal magic items anyone needs to do their job, and don't be a klepto/kender" Course, I never played in any evil parties or PVP parties, but if it's agree on ahead of time, then cool.

And this makes me feel like such a grognard. I remember this discussion from oh, about 30 years ago. 2nd ed players handbook, page 46 - 49ish. Looks like Pex is taking either LG or LN stance, the "other side" is either NG, CG, or a less PVP version of NE, and the strawman is CE and/or NE.

[Unoriginal]

Really? 6 pages about this on GiantITP of all places? Haley, Belkar, and V would like a word with you.

You mean someone how had a breakdown due to her inhability to open to others and is slowly working over this issue, a murderous psychopath, and someone who killed thousands while on a ego trip?

The Order of the Stick isn't really an exemple of well-adjusted individuals.

[Lombra]

You mean someone how had a breakdown due to her inhability to open to others and is slowly working over this issue, a murderous psychopath, and someone who killed thousands while on a ego trip?

The Order of the Stick isn't really an exemple of well-adjusted individuals.
What follows is all IMHO
One has to understand the rules of the "session zero" before playing a game, if the other people you play with explicitly state that they just want a monster slaughterfest to have jolly fun all together, then you should save the greedy klepto character for another game (or not play the game), but if the table is more open to more different and atypical character behaviours, maybe much more deep characters than "I'm a good paladin that saves damsels in distress" which is a totally great way to play a character, then I see no problem on adding some intra-party affairs.

There is a problem if the character steals just for the sake of it, without a reason, this is just metagaming on the behalf of the player, you have to justify OOC why your character is behaving in such a hostile way, so that the rest of the players and the DM can accept your character concept.

I don't know why I quoted you; but you don't get noticed at this thread depth if you don't include a quote in your post.

[Pr6i6e6st]

I think it comes down to this. Is it dramatically satisfying? Does the act of theft committed add to the story?

Think of movies and stories with A thief as the protagonist. how often do you see them steal? How often is it from an important character? How did that effect the story? How many times do you see him steal in the movie?

Most often, they steal 3 times. Once is something small to establish they are a thief, but rarely anyone important, unless it's the whole reason they're in the mess they're in. Second time is typically something small like a key or something that helps them and the party. 3rd time is something that changes everything; the villains special amulet, a booby trapped treasure, something linked to a prophecy.

It's predictable to follow such a path yes, but it's dramatically satisfying. Anything else is just disappointing or annoying. It leads to nothing. There's no build. There's no foreshadowing. It's just a thing that happens. Stuff like that is reserved for red herrings usually.

So I mean, to me anyways, D&D seems like an exercise in improve storytelling. But just because it's improve doesn't mean there can't be a natural build. And when you step away from what's normal in storytelling, you can be met with frustration or boredom from your audience, which in this case is your other players and the DM.

So I guess, what are you playing? A sandbox do whatever game? Or a story game? Are your players and DM on board with it?

[Pex]

I'll make the comparison to the NPC thief again; what's different about an NPC stealing from the party and a PC doing it? The consequences of the latter are a little closer to home, but that can be the entire point of the exercise. Imagine the GM gave you a note in a game, reading simply; "During your down-time, a reliable informant tells you that there is a traitor in your midst". Is this a positive or negative addition to your game? Are you going to get upset because all of a sudden there's some doubt as to whether your so-called friends can truly be trusted, or are you going to enjoy the experience of playing a game where you don't have the safety net of being assured of your companions loyalty to the cause? Why is it different if the GM casts that doubt or another player?



It's the DM's job to create antagonists for the party to deal with. The party is going to know who stole from them. Even if not at first and need to do some investigation, the party will find out because if they never do then it is no different to the DM arbitrarily saying "rocks fall everyone dies". DM fiat can only go so far before the players say "What else does my character do, DM?" Presuming the DM is not a jerk, finding and catching the thief is the adventure. It could also be a side thing just happening to one PC during downtime when the playing group has each character do their own thing for a session. That happened to me in my old Pathfinder group. An NPC tried to pickpocket my cleric, but I succeeded in spotting him. Roleplaying shenanigans over game sessions, he became a member of my church, multiclassed into cleric, and was Redeemed.

Your issue is that you admit the other players don't matter to you, figuratively not literally verbatim speaking. You are not a team. You are individuals who coincidentally just happen to be fighting the same bad guy at the moment. With that attitude it is no wonder your own personal sense of fun is the only thing that counts. Anyone who objects is trying to control how you play your character. That is what makes you a "That Guy".

[Sigreid]

Then consider my example amended. In this case, the wizard still casts suggestion on you, but he only does it to compel you to pay for his room,
food, and drinks. He does this because he can't be bothered to deal with peasants, and being a thief he figures you're low enough that making you do this isn't outside of your character. So in other words, he's doing this to fulfill his character's concept of "arrogant wizard who uses others to do his dirty work". I mean, were he's not really doing this to you often, and he's not doing it enough to really impact the you very much. Typically we're talking about every few sessions making give up 2-10gp worth of stuff out of thousands gained in loot. It's never a big item. It's never an important item. It's never a magic item. it's trivial.

IMO it boils down to whether the character knows anything has been done to him. If a character is caught pocketing extra loot, there should be consequences and his player shouldn't get bent over that. If A character knows the wizard used magic to take advantage of him, there's nothing wrong with him exacting revenge or refusing to continue with said wizard and the wizard's player shouldn't get bent about it. it's not a double standard, it's all about acting on what the character knows in a way appropriate to that character.

[MadBear]

IMO it boils down to whether the character knows anything has been done to him. If a character is caught pocketing extra loot, there should be consequences and his player shouldn't get bent over that. If A character knows the wizard used magic to take advantage of him, there's nothing wrong with him exacting revenge or refusing to continue with said wizard and the wizard's player shouldn't get bent about it. it's not a double standard, it's all about acting on what the character knows in a way appropriate to that character.

yes, and in my example the I'm putting forth the wizard is using his magic to subvert and prevent the other character from knowing that he was taken advantage of. In other words, the Player knows he's being screwed over, and the character doesn't. In such a game can I tell the rogue player that he shouldn't get bent about my wizard stealing from him using his magic abilities?

(The simple answer here is that in most games, my scenario has very little impact on the character being taken advantage of, but the player has the right to be upset about his character being taken advantage of. I don't get what's so hard about this. If you are part of a group where the players dont like you stealing from them, you shouldn't steal from them, even if your character can mechanically do it and get away with it. In the exact same way, if your playing with a group that doesn't like you casting mind control spells on their characters, you shouldn't cast mind control spells on their characters. )

[Sigreid]

yes, and in my example the I'm putting forth the wizard is using his magic to subvert and prevent the other character from knowing that he was taken advantage of. In other words, the Player knows he's being screwed over, and the character doesn't. In such a game can I tell the rogue player that he shouldn't get bent about my wizard stealing from him using his magic abilities?

(The simple answer here is that in most games, my scenario has very little impact on the character being taken advantage of, but the player has the right to be upset about his character being taken advantage of. I don't get what's so hard about this. If you are part of a group where the players dont like you stealing from them, you shouldn't steal from them, even if your character can mechanically do it and get away with it. In the exact same way, if your playing with a group that doesn't like you casting mind control spells on their characters, you shouldn't cast mind control spells on their characters. )

IMO, no you shouldn't tell the player he shouldn't be upset. I think the player should not be upset all on his own. As I've already said, if you're going to game with people who are going to get bent over these things then you shouldn't do them. The purpose of the game isn't to frustrate the other players (well, except the DM frustrating the players enough that they feel a real sense of accomplishment when they overcome).

Now if I'm joining a group where people are going to get bent over these things, I'm going to have to decide whether I want to play with people who do get that worked up over the game. If that's the only thing that sticks out, maybe. If it's a group that gets worked up over other things individual players do to play the character they want, I'll likely move on.

I'll say again, I haven't personally played a character that pockets extra loot. I have played in parties where someone has played a character that does. As long as they aren't getting to extravagant with it, I really don't care.

[SpoonR]

You mean someone how had a breakdown due to her inhability to open to others and is slowly working over this issue, a murderous psychopath, and someone who killed thousands while on a ego trip?

The Order of the Stick isn't really an exemple of well-adjusted individuals.

Yup. Them. Very much not well-adjusted, good thing they are player characters and not players. And yet, even though they have stolen from the party, have been the "characters doing bad things in a goodish party", they are still functional party members. Sure looks to me like the players are still having fun.

May not work for every player or every gaming group, but it works. (Speaking very IME, I'd have trouble suspending disbelief if the rogue never pickocketed the wrong person, the fighter never tried to use force to get something, or the wizard never seemed interested in learning more magic and never used magic to make life easier. Much worse than "I never met you before but you're a PC so I trust you complete")

[JellyPooga]

It's the DM's job to create antagonists for the party to deal with. The party is going to know who stole from them. Even if not at first and need to do some investigation, the party will find out because if they never do then it is no different to the DM arbitrarily saying "rocks fall everyone dies". DM fiat can only go so far before the players say "What else does my character do, DM?" Presuming the DM is not a jerk, finding and catching the thief is the adventure. It could also be a side thing just happening to one PC during downtime when the playing group has each character do their own thing for a session. That happened to me in my old Pathfinder group. An NPC tried to pickpocket my cleric, but I succeeded in spotting him. Roleplaying shenanigans over game sessions, he became a member of my church, multiclassed into cleric, and was Redeemed.

You didn't answer the question; why couldn't that NPC pickpocket be a PC instead? Where in the PHB does it say that a PC cannot be an antagoist, or that it's solely the GMs job to create them? Reference me a page number that says "all the Players must work together at all times".


Your issue is that you admit the other players don't matter to you, figuratively not literally verbatim speaking. You are not a team. You are individuals who coincidentally just happen to be fighting the same bad guy at the moment. With that attitude it is no wonder your own personal sense of fun is the only thing that counts. Anyone who objects is trying to control how you play your character. That is what makes you a "That Guy".

And now you're insulting me. Nice one :smallannoyed:. When did I say the other players or their fun didn't matter to me? I've not supported theft from the party at the expense of other players fun at all. What I'm defending is the notion that stealing from the party isn't a selfish act and doesn't have to be a douche move as a player. Let me break down why you think I'm "That Guy" and why you're wrong;

1) You consider all treasure to be party treasure. I don't. This is a difference of opinon, neither of us is wrong, but I disagree with you. Just disagreeing with you doesn't make me "That Guy".

2) You consider it the sole remit of the GM to create antagonists of any kind. As I mentioned above, this is not even an implied rule anywhere in any D&D book. Ever. Creating characters that aren't always completely trustworthy, might have a selfish side or have many other "negative" traits doesn't make me "That Guy" because being "That Guy" has nothing to do with what characters you play.

3) You consider the act of "stealing" (and I use inverted commas because some of what you consider theft is bizarre to me) to be an entirely selfish act as a player. I consider stealing to be a selfish act as a character; as a player I consider it an opportunity to create a roleplaying scene between one character and another. I do not change this opinion whether my character is the one doing the stealing or being stolen from. "That Guy" is a selfish player; I am just a player who is willing to use a variety of different tools to roleplay.

If I know another player won't enjoy a scene like that, I won't steal from his character. If I know the party as a whole isn't going to enjoy me playing a character like that, I won't play that character. This is session-zero stuff. This is basics.

Does that really sound like "That Guy"?
- "That Guy" is the sort of person that complains loudly when someone does something he doesn't like.
- "That Guy" gets all uppity when things don't always go his way or the way he expected.
- "That Guy" doesn't like other players playing characters that conflict with his own.
- "That Guy" takes extreme measures in petty retaliations when he feels like someone is "ruining his fun".

You might not advocate stealing, Pex, but from where I'm standing, you've a few more of "That Guys" traits than I do :smallamused:.

The real difference between you and I, Pex? I suspect I enjoy playing a wider variety of characters than you do (which is no disparagement to you; there's nothing wrong with sticking to a character type) and I don't take it as a personal insult when someone, either GM or Player, does something negative to one of my characters (nor is any action I take intended as such). Negative things happening to characters is what makes the game a challenge. That challenge is fun. What does it matter where that challenge comes from?

[EvilAnagram]

And so you, too, JellyHorseSpirit, have been drawn into the quagmire of a polarizing argument.

[Delicious Taffy]

And so you, too, JellyHorseSpirit, have been drawn into the quagmire of a polarizing argument.

At times like this, a certain scene from a movie springs to mind.

https://thejawsofstrife.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/tumblr_li2q2ba83v1qgj47l.jpg

[Laurefindel]

I strongly believe that in a TTRPG, characters are inseparable from their players.

The "distance" varies from one individual to another, but a TTRPG is is not a play or a novel*; too much of the player's personality and background is invested in the character to become separate entities**. As such, I don't buy into the argument that "dude, I'm not being a jerk to you, my character is being a jerk to yours ".

Between friends we sometimes like to tease one another and pull each-other's legs. PvP (in which I include stealing here) is of the same type; you know the limits of what's acceptable among your friends and you should act (roleplay) accordingly. Ignoring that is like "going too far" among friends (or among acquaintances or even new people you just met).

*and even then, some will argue that novel protagonists are inseparable from their authors.

** that's also why I'm uncomfortable with evil campaign.

[Dr.Samurai]

There is no line because it's not personal. I'm not stealing from a player, the Wizard isn't casting Suggestion on me and the Fighter isn't breaking my arms. These are all things happening to characters in a game.
I'm typically not a fan of someone invoking the "taking it personally" argument, because it automatically puts the other person on the defensive. In this case, I think we just have differences in expectations about the game. I expect antagonism on the order of theft, opposed skill checks, and forced saving throws to come from the DM, not the other PCs. My expectations are that I'll be working alongside the PCs to adventure through the game world the DM has set up.

I'm not interested in going through the gameworld the DM has set up to resolve you stealing from me, or casting Suggestion on me, or threatening to break my arm if I don't give you more of the loot. Again, suggestions of "lynch him if he gets caught" are missing the point, because I don't play D&D to kill my party members.

They're all opportunities for me to play my character and my fellow players to play theirs in a variety of different scenarios. I'm just as happy to play a character with a broken arm whether it was the party Fighter (where I might sullenly "fall into line" and do as he say), a fall off a cliff (where I'd curse my luck at such a crippling mishap) or a bad-guy did it (where I might grit my teeth and try to valiently power on to defeat him).
I find it interesting that you and Dr. Cliché argue for total player agency, to the point where you will allow another character to strip yours of agency in game.

Also, I think you're drawing a false equivalence here. We are expected to have to deal with the world the DM has set up. This is different from another player using his abilities to control your character.

I'll make the comparison to the NPC thief again; what's different about an NPC stealing from the party and a PC doing it? The consequences of the latter are a little closer to home, but that can be the entire point of the exercise. Imagine the GM gave you a note in a game, reading simply; "During your down-time, a reliable informant tells you that there is a traitor in your midst". Is this a positive or negative addition to your game? Are you going to get upset because all of a sudden there's some doubt as to whether your so-called friends can truly be trusted, or are you going to enjoy the experience of playing a game where you don't have the safety net of being assured of your companions loyalty to the cause? Why is it different if the GM casts that doubt or another player?
Just admit that this is a different type of game than what people expect out of D&D. Without any numbers, I'll still wager that *most* players play D&D to adventure alongside their allies delving into dungeons and ruins to fight monsters and traps set up by the DM. They *do not* play to be suspicious of each other, and steal from each other, and chop each others hands off.

I'll say it again; whatever happens in-character is fine by me, so long as it a) makes sense in-character, b) isn't due to metagaming and c) isn't a personal attack (or retaliation) on me as a player.
I just find this very hard to believe. If I'm playing an evil wizard, and I cast Mindrape on you and start changing your alignment and your memories and basically make you my slave... you're okay with this? You don't mind me taking virtually complete control of your character because it makes sense and isn't a personal attack? Come on, there has to be a line. I'm skeptical that you're unaware that not all PvP should be allowed...

But what I'm trying to explain is that your emotions aren't law. The fact that the actions of another player's character makes you angry doesn't give you any moral authority to order that player to stop.
Again, it isn't just "the actions of another... character..." that makes me angry. They are *stealing* from me. Their actions are targeted at me, and affect me (me meaning "my character" here before I get accused of conflating anything).

That's why I'm telling you to be specific. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, but your comment makes it seem unreasonable to be upset, when in fact the "actions" you're referring to are targeting the person that's angry.

But that's the thing, the character getting stolen from does not have a say in the matter. He does not get to decide the outcome of every action that affects his character. If he wants that, tell him to go write a novel instead.
See? Again, we're not talking about "every action". You're saying that if I do something against your character in game, then you as the player have no grounds to say anything about it and it must be resolved, however that happens, in game.

I disagree with that.

I mean, Players can also get angry when their character rolls a 1 on a save or skill check or falls into a trap. It doesn't mean they can just rewrite reality to suit their whims.
I'm not falling into the trap (see what I did there?) of equating PvP with the DM's world. Please try to stay on topic. We're talking about a player character stealing from another player character.

And this is exactly why I think OOC "solutions" are stupid, because it amounts to one player trying to tell another player not to play his character.
The fact that you read that exchange and this is your takeaway leaves me thinking we won't see eye to eye on this.

If "please don't steal from me" means "you can't play your character" to you, then I certainly think the problem is with you and your character, and not the person being stolen from (you in the general sense).

Or, you know, people could get off their high horses and stop trying to tell others that they're having fun incorrectly.
"Stop stealing from me. It's not fun for me."

"Why are you telling me I'm having fun incorrectly?!?!?!?!"

Yeah, no...

If the players are *fine* with other players' characters trying to steal or cheat them out of their money, is it a problem?
No. If that's the game everyone wants to play, what would be the problem?

Also, I agree with Delicious Taffy and Arial Black and PheonixPhyre. Also, Pr6i6e6st.

[Pr6i6e6st]

. . . Y'll said the plane of law couldn't be destroyed. Look at the chaos that ensues! WHERE'S YOUR PRIMUS NOW?!?! MUAHAHAHA . . . Sorry

[JellyPooga]

In this case, I think we just have differences in expectations about the game. I expect antagonism on the order of theft, opposed skill checks, and forced saving throws to come from the DM, not the other PCs. My expectations are that I'll be working alongside the PCs to adventure through the game world the DM has set up.

And I think those expectations are limiting your game.


find it interesting that you and Dr. Cliché argue for total player agency, to the point where you will allow another character to strip yours of agency in game.

Here's the difference; my mindraped slave.of a character has very little character agency. I still have total player agency to do as I wish within the confines of the way my character and the game has developed. If my character is stuck in a jail cell, I still get to decide how I'm going to escape, if I'm going to escape at all.


Just admit that this is a different type of game than what people expect out of D&D.

No, it's a different type of game than you expect. I can just as easily throw this back in your face and say that it's a style of game that you should admit is totally valid because there are many people who enjoy it and it's completely within the expectations of the rules. Further, by limiting those players to only playing your preferred game style, it's not those players that are forcing others to conform...

...but I won't do that because it's circular. The two gaming styles are largely incompatible and both are equally valid. As has been mentioned a million times already (not only by myself); this is something that should be established before starting play and if it isn't and it comes up, players should be willing to be flexible in their preferred game style instead of throwing the toys out of the pram and getting vindictive, quitting the game or booting players over it.

[Arial Black]

D&D is not "Players vs. GM", it's "Players and GM". The Players don't have to be "on the same side" any more than the GM has to actively try to get his Players killed, or a single dragon (or dungeon, for that matter) need appear in an adventure.

That is the expectation when we belly-up to the table. It might not be a game rule, and there might be some campaigns that are all about evil PCs and PvP. But generally, all else being equal, it's 'us against the world'.

Soccer has 'Laws Of The Game', the rules of association football. These rules tell you things like: 11 men per team on the field of play, the size/weight of the ball, and so on.

But the Laws do not specify that each team is expected to work toward the same (literal) goal. Imagine that one of your team tackles you, and effectively starts playing against you! He scores a goal, technically an own-goal, and your team is now losing 1-0.

Has that player broken any of the Laws? No. Is his behaviour okay? No it damn well is not! He's going to be kicked off the team and never invited back. He has betrayed his teammates, and his cries of 'I didn't break any rule' and 'how dare you curtail my freedom' fall on deaf ears. He is definitely in the wrong.

On our team we have a barbarian, a fighter, a rogue, a wizard and a cleric. If any of them start working against us then they are now the enemy. If any player has his PC act against the team then that player is in the wrong.

It's not limited to stealing. I remember a guy new to RPGs who joined our AL group. He made a charismatic rogue with Expertise in Persuasion. The first thing he did was to roll a Persuasion check at +7 against another PC, get 20+, and demand the PC give him all his gear and prance naked down the street.

He was soon told that Persuasion doesn't work like that, nor on PCs in general. But he had imagined the entire session would be him messing with the other PCs, making them humiliate themselves. For a game where the aim is for all the players to have fun, this would be one player having fun and the rest being angry. Yes, that player would be in the wrong even if Persuasion could be used that way.

On the subject of Player versus Character, part of role-playing is to act in character. If you are playing your PC in-character, then if your PC is heroic then you (the player) are acting that out. If your PC is a douche then you the player are acting like a douche. The game works by both the PC and its player acting like douches, so yes, the player is being a douche, even if his excuse is that he's just playing his character.

[Laurefindel]

And I think those expectations are limiting your game.

any kind of frame puts certain limits on your game. Sticking to a certain genre ("no your fantasy paladin cannot purchase a laser gun at the city market") is limiting your game. OoG agreements ("no gratuitous killing of other PCs")
is limiting your game. But bringing everyone within the same referential does not make for bad gaming.

[Pex]

It boils down to whether the party is a team or not. If they are PCs stealing from each other is wrong. If not, it's everyone for himself. I find everyone playing for himself bad for the game.

[JellyPooga]

That is the expectation when we belly-up to the table. It might not be a game rule, and there might be some campaigns that are all about evil PCs and PvP. But generally, all else being equal, it's 'us against the world'.

Again, I'll point out that this is your expectation. Not that you're wrong to have it, but you also don't get to cry "foul" when someone rocks up with a different one.


Soccer has 'Laws Of The Game', the rules of association football. These rules tell you things like: 11 men per team on the field of play, the size/weight of the ball, and so on.

But the Laws do not specify that each team is expected to work toward the same (literal) goal. Imagine that one of your team tackles you, and effectively starts playing against you! He scores a goal, technically an own-goal, and your team is now losing 1-0.

Has that player broken any of the Laws? No. Is his behaviour okay? No it damn well is not! He's going to be kicked off the team and never invited back. He has betrayed his teammates, and his cries of 'I didn't break any rule' and 'how dare you curtail my freedom' fall on deaf ears. He is definitely in the wrong.

Well, to extend the analogy, the player playing against his own team has entered that game with different expectations to the rest of the team. Had the team known it beforehand, he would never have been let on the team in the first place. If, after the fact, the team question this "rogue player" about what the devil he was up to, he is completely justified in saying "oh, I thought the idea was to score as many goals as possible, regardless of who for" if that is, in fact, what he thought the point of the game was.

Somewhere along the line there was a massive miscommunication that you can either resolve by explaining the problem and carrying on or by kicking the "problem" player off the team. Which one is more reasonable? Yes, the problem player may continue to be a problem and the only recourse is to stop playing with him, but that's not a problem with him scoring own-goals, that's a problem of that player being unwilling to play the same game as everyone else.


On the subject of Player versus Character, part of role-playing is to act in character. If you are playing your PC in-character, then if your PC is heroic then you (the player) are acting that out. If your PC is a douche then you the player are acting like a douche. The game works by both the PC and its player acting like douches, so yes, the player is being a douche, even if his excuse is that he's just playing his character.

No, the player playing a douche is having his character be a douche. As I've said before, conflict is part and parcel of the game. The GM isn't being a douche by having NPCs attack the PCs any more than a player is by having his character do so. Yes, it may go against the expectatons of certain players, but equally it may not and again, that's a player problem because of a miscommunication, not a character one. Playing a douche doesn't make you one at all. You can still be a douche-bag player and have your character do nothing douchey at all.

[Kangodo]

Or, you know, people could get off their high horses and stop trying to tell others that they're having fun incorrectly.
Well, the thread IS named 'How do you feel..' so it's only natural people will come in and tell us how they feel.

In the end it's just not what (apparently) many people want in a game.
Just as we don't like it when the Bard turns the game into a dating sim, we don't like it when the rogue turns it into GTA-V.

[Dr.Samurai]

And I think those expectations are limiting your game.
Yes, but I think Arial Black and Laurefindel have explained why this isn't a bad thing.

Here's the difference; my mindraped slave of a character has very little character agency. I still have total player agency to do as I wish within the confines of the way my character and the game has developed.
You really don't. You will be stuck attempting impossible saving throw DCs while the wizard orders you around. I mean... I guess you can roleplay how you execute his orders throughout the day. But this is a very different character than the one you set out to play.

It seems that you and I have very different ideas of what people are aiming to do when they sit around the game table. It's baffling to me that you don't understand how someone might be upset that the character they wanted to play is now under control of someone else. Yes, you can still roleplay how your character acts while under that control, but another player at the table has completely hijacked your character.

If my character is stuck in a jail cell, I still get to decide how I'm going to escape, if I'm going to escape at all.
Yes, but that's pointless if you're not interested in escaping from jail all the time. Let's say another player has a bad habit of committing petty crimes and framing you for them. And so every time you go to town, you inevitably end up spending a week in jail. Can you see how a player might say to the rogue and DM alike "Hey, I really don't want to spend time escaping from jail every time we go to a city. Can we just stop the whole "framing my character" bit please?"

For me, explaining to me that I still have the freedom to escape from jail or do my time, or prove my innocence is pointless. It's just not something I want to keep doing in the game and I see no reason that, as another player at the table, you should be allowed to force me to keep doing it.

I'm just not sure how you and the good Doctor are aware that someone else is being targeted, but that person has no room to say something, one way or the other, on the actions that are impacting their character.

No, it's a different type of game than you expect. I can just as easily throw this back in your face and say that it's a style of game that you should admit is totally valid because there are many people who enjoy it and it's completely within the expectations of the rules. Further, by limiting those players to only playing your preferred game style, it's not those players that are forcing others to conform...
I don't think I've made any mention of whether it's valid or not. I take issue with the idea that you think you can go around robbing other players, casting spells on them, etc. and none of them should dare complain or take issue with it, because everything should be resolved in game. I take issue with your notion that PvP is mostly harmless and makes the game more interesting.

The problem is that you guys seem to think no one has any reason to be upset when their character is being targeted by other PCs. To the point that I think you're playing a completely different game than the rest of us. I acknowledge that PvP games exist and can work and can be super fun for everyone at the table. But that doesn't go anywhere to prop up the notion that anyone complaining about being robbed by an ally is simply whining and preventing others from playing the character they want.

...but I won't do that because it's circular. The two gaming styles are largely incompatible and both are equally valid. As has been mentioned a million times already (not only by myself); this is something that should be established before starting play and if it isn't and it comes up, players should be willing to be flexible in their preferred game style instead of throwing the toys out of the pram and getting vindictive, quitting the game or booting players over it.
But I don't have to be vindictive, quit the game, or boot anyone to say "Actually, I'm not interested in your character stealing from me, so please don't." The problem is that this seems like a bad way to handle it according to you and Dr. Cliché.

[jas61292]

You know, I don't feel as strongly on this issue as a lot of people, but there is one thing that often comes up in threads like this that really grinds my gears: people, completely seriously, suggesting that murder is an appropriate and fair means to respond to behavior you do not like. The moment you advocate the much worse crime of forcibly removing the character from the game because they were acting in a way that upsets you as a player, you have lost any and all moral high ground.

Two wrongs simply do not make a right, and honestly, who is the worse character: the one who steals from allies, our the one who murders allies? And this is even more distressing when such characters often otherwise try and present themselves as good guy heroes. I know that my personal opinion has always been that 99% of PCs are chaotic evil, no matter what is written on their sheet, but that doesn't make it a good thing. If you have issues with howa player is playing a character, take it up with the player. Simply responding in kind makes you just as bad, if not worse.

[mr-mercer]

I'm in favour of protecting the freedoms of players where possible, so I won't tell people to not steal from the party or do similar things, but it is important to respect the wishes of your fellow players. As some parties may have some who are okay with it and some who are not, I'd recommend dealing with it on a one-to-one basis: if players A and B are okay with being stolen from but players C, D and E aren't, just limit your stealing to A and B to avoid the trouble. In general I'd think of myself as neutral here so I respect both sides, but I'd personally rather not be stolen from.

What I strongly dislike here, however, is the pro-stealing side's "don't take it personally" argument. People aren't in complete control of their emotions and telling someone that their emotions aren't valid is just wrong. You wouldn't insult someone and then defend yourself by saying "I didn't actually mean it, stop taking everything so personally!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I strongly dislike here, however, is the pro-stealing side's "don't take it personally" argument. People aren't in complete control of their emotions and telling someone that their emotions aren't valid is just wrong. You wouldn't insult someone and then defend yourself by saying "I didn't actually mean it, stop taking everything so personally!"

Sadly that's something I hear frequently. Of course, I teach teenagers and that kind of immature self-centered BS is all too common (and something we try to break them of). That same attitude ("How dare you spoil my character concept" or "It's a free [game/country/etc], how dare you tell me how to play") pervades this thread. And most discussions of PvP in non-PvP settings.


I see the same attitude from the griefers in MMOs--"If you weren't bad, you wouldn't get ganked" (spoken by a max-level player in full gear to a new character in the starting areas). This isn't a character issue, it's a player issue. In a group game, everyone has claim on everyone else's behavior. Intentionally going against the group consensus as to play style is a fault and is a form of cheating. Don't do it.

If everyone agrees upfront and without arm-twisting, sure. Go for it. Whatever. Doesn't matter to me (except that I won't play that kind of game). I don't understand what it brings to the table other than a nebulous concept of "freedom," but that's your choice. Don't claim you're a better or more versatile role-player--you're playing an artificially narrowed character concept in a manner designed to cause grief. That's richard behavior, not good role-playing behavior.

[Laurefindel]

You know, I don't feel as strongly on this issue as a lot of people, but there is one thing that often comes up in threads like this that really grinds my gears: people, completely seriously, suggesting that murder is an appropriate and fair means to respond to behavior you do not like (...)

Yes, escalation of violence is rather quick in RPGs in general for several reasons, some good, some less so.

To be fair, a lot of the characters' life is edited out of the game. Things like "my character is upset with you" is easy to ignore since we often fast-forward things like "you guys set-up camp. Night was uneventful. You wake up with full hp" or "you arrive to [town] after three days of travel". Therefore, all the these awkward and uncomfortable moments that usually lead to some resolution of conflict are typically bypassed, leaving the players with only the most drastic outcomes. Add the fact that fist-fight brawls are not well represented in D&D, the only way to "stand your ground" in D&D id to make an attack roll (actually, 5e makes it a bit easier with nonlethal attacks, but a character still needs to be armed with lethal weapons to weight significantly in combat).

[Sigreid]

What I strongly dislike here, however, is the pro-stealing side's "don't take it personally" argument. People aren't in complete control of their emotions and telling someone that their emotions aren't valid is just wrong. You wouldn't insult someone and then defend yourself by saying "I didn't actually mean it, stop taking everything so personally!"

I'd say from my perspective it's not that you have no right to be upset, it's that I don't understand why it bothers you. I can't tell you how to feel about it. Were we to sit down at the same table as you and Pex, it would be on me to decide if I belong at that table. If you were to join my table, it would be on you to decide if you can deal with a group where these things might happen and the expectation is you don't get worked up about it.

[Vercingex]

I'd say from my perspective it's not that you have no right to be upset, it's that I don't understand why it bothers you. I can't tell you how to feel about it. Were we to sit down at the same table as you and Pex, it would be on me to decide if I belong at that table. If you were to join my table, it would be on you to decide if you can deal with a group where these things might happen and the expectation is you don't get worked up about it.

If I were playing with an unknown group of people for the first time, I wouldn't operate on the assumption that the other players would be okay with me taking their stuff. Helping the party out tends to make nobody angry; lying and stealing from them makes some people angry. Therefore, in an unknown environment, better to go with the one that everyone is going to be okay with.

[Unoriginal]

If I were playing with an unknown group of people for the first time, I wouldn't operate on the assumption that the other players would be okay with me taking their stuff. Helping the party out tends to make nobody angry; lying and stealing from them makes some people angry. Therefore, in an unknown environment, better to go with the one that everyone is going to be okay with.

Or: talk with the people about it so it does not stay an unknown factor

[Dr.Samurai]

Or: talk with the people about it so it does not stay an unknown factor
The point is that the onus is on the person that thinks stealing is okay to check with everyone else. As Vercingex said, everyone tends to like it when you help the group out, but not everyone tends to like it when you steal from them. So if you have plans on stealing from them, say something.

This is what I was getting at with expectations.

[JellyPooga]

You really don't. You will be stuck attempting impossible saving throw DCs while the wizard orders you around. I mean... I guess you can roleplay how you execute his orders throughout the day. But this is a very different character than the one you set out to play.

And what's so bad about playing a character than the one you set out to play? I may have set out to play a happy-go-lucky minstrel who's not afraid to defend the weak. After several adventures, some tradegy may strike, or events conspire to beat that happy-go-lucky attitude out of that character; perhaps even a spell being mind-controlled by an evil wizard that kept me as a slave for a year and a day, each day a constant struggle to regain my own mind while I perform the most vile of deeds on his behalf. At the end of it, my character has become jaded, a hollow shell of the chirpy chappy he once was, the guilt of his actions preying constantly on his mind and endlessly hounded by stark reminders of the things he knew he could have prevented if only his mind was stronger.

Is my character the one I set out to be? No. Does it make for an awesome character arc? Absolutely. What facilitated that arc? My character agency being infringed upon. Did I lose player agency? Only if someone was literally saying "your character does X, Y and Z", which isn't the way any spell or effect works.

So to relate this back to theft from a fellow party member; yes, I'm forcing you to react to a situation in the game, but I'm not impinging on your player agency. You still have the choice to react in whatever way you wish; if that's by attacking my character or estranging him, fine, the game will continue in some fashion or another and our characters will develop from the experience. Will it necessarily be in the manner either of us expected? Probably not, but always getting what you expect is pretty dull in my experience.


It seems that you and I have very different ideas of what people are aiming to do when they sit around the game table. It's baffling to me that you don't understand how someone might be upset that the character they wanted to play is now under control of someone else. Yes, you can still roleplay how your character acts while under that control, but another player at the table has completely hijacked your character.

Except they haven't completely hijacked my character. They're calling the shots, they're telling me I've got to do X, but I still decide the specifics, I get to play my character doing X. Is that really so different to the GM giving you a plot hook?

GM: "An old man in a tavern tells you about a dungeon full of loot"
Player: "OK, I'll bite. We go explore the dungeon"

This is pretty normal and is basically the GM telling you that you have to go explore the dungeon because that's the adventure he's got planned for that session.

GM: "An old man in a tavern tells you about a dungeon full of loot"
Player: "Nah, I'll pass, I don't want to do that. What else you got?"
GM: "Hint; go on the dungeon delve, it's just an intro"
Player: "Stop trying to impinge on my agency!"

This is a player being a douche. Yeah, maybe the GM should have more than one dungeon planned, but the player is still not "playing the game" by refusing to bite on the plot hook. By comparison, here's a character "stealing" so-called party loot;

Rogue: "Hey guys, look what I found!" [holds up the shiny gem he found in a hidden cache after bypassing several traps and locks]
Fighter: "Hmm, what's it worth? We need to split the proceeds because we're a party"
Rogue: "What? No we don't. I found it, it's mine"
Fighter: "Yeah, but we're on an adventure, we have to split everything equally."
Rogue: "Err...why?"
Fighter: "Because I said so"
Rogue: "OK, no. What you going to do about it?"
Fighter: "Damned dirty thief. You're forcing me to do this" [draws sword and attacks] "You're such a douche for making me attack you, you know? You shouldn't impinge on my agency that way"

Who's the douchebag here? According to some of the responses that have been posted in this thread, this kind of scene is why I, as a player, am a douche for being willing to "steal" from the party and I should feel bad about the kind of player I am because I'm the one "forcing" others to play in a way that they don't want to.


Can you see how a player might say to the rogue and DM alike "Hey, I really don't want to spend time escaping from jail every time we go to a city. Can we just stop the whole "framing my character" bit please?"

Yes, I can. I've said as much. Several times. I'm not defending the douche player that continues to act that way despite requests to the contrary and nor am I that player. I never have. That guy is a problem player and should be addressed appropriately. What I'm defending is the notion that theft from the party is not the problem; the player that does it in a problematic way is. Stealing from the party can be a constructive roleplaying experience and what I take issue with is the flat refusal to even consider that it might be.

[Dr.Samurai]

And what's so bad about playing a character than the one you set out to play?
You tell me. Apparently it is a grave injustice to ask a player to stop stealing from his allies. What's so bad about asking the thief to not play the character he set out to play?

I may have set out to play a happy-go-lucky minstrel who's not afraid to defend the weak. After several adventures, some tradegy may strike, or events conspire to beat that happy-go-lucky attitude out of that character; perhaps even a spell being mind-controlled by an evil wizard that kept me as a slave for a year and a day, each day a constant struggle to regain my own mind while I perform the most vile of deeds on his behalf. At the end of it, my character has become jaded, a hollow shell of the chirpy chappy he once was, the guilt of his actions preying constantly on his mind and endlessly hounded by stark reminders of the things he knew he could have prevented if only his mind was stronger.
None of this means anything Jelly. I understand that for you, it's fine. And you can make it work and you'll go with the flow and enjoy the narrative. But people are investing their time into the game. Maybe they have to commute to the game store, or their friend's house. Maybe they need to pay for a babysitter. People that are sitting to play at the game should have some expectation of playing the character they want. Not playing the character the guy sitting next to them wants to abuse.

No matter how you describe it, you won't convince me that leaving my character to the whims of my ally's wants is the same as tackling the challenges set forth by the DM. One is the game master. The other is along for the ride just the same as me.

So to relate this back to theft from a fellow party member; yes, I'm forcing you to react to a situation in the game, but I'm not impinging on your player agency. You still have the choice to react in whatever way you wish; if that's by attacking my character or estranging him, fine, the game will continue in some fashion or another and our characters will develop from the experience. Will it necessarily be in the manner either of us expected? Probably not, but always getting what you expect is pretty dull in my experience.
Yes, a choice between a **** sandwich and a turd burger is still a choice. I agree lol.

So I can choose between letting you steal from me, or estranging or attacking the character I'm supposed to be risking my life alongside. Let me see if I have proficiency in Mental Acrobatics...

Except they haven't completely hijacked my character. They're calling the shots, they're telling me I've got to do X, but I still decide the specifics, I get to play my character doing X. Is that really so different to the GM giving you a plot hook?
The GM is not a player. Stop acting like they are one and the same. The GM is the Game Master. Master. As in... Master. If an NPC robs me, or casts a spell on me, that's expected. That's part of the game. If my ally does the same, that's completely different.

This is pretty normal...
Right. Like not stealing or attacking your allies. We're agreed that there is a "normal" D&D. Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way.

This is a player being a douche. Yeah, maybe the GM should have more than one dungeon planned, but the player is still not "playing the game" by refusing to bite on the plot hook.
Soooooooooooooooooo..... my expectations about the intent of the game are meaningless because they're simply *my* expectations. But here we have a player being a "douche" because he doesn't feel like taking the DM's plot hook?

Hmmm... I think your... expectations are the problem Jelly. Everyone is free to play the game how they want. Why should the rest of us just listen to every random NPC when this one party member doesn't feel like going to that dungeon???

Why are we saying that his idea of fun is wrong? Why are we not allowing him to play the character he wants to play?

/sarcasm

By comparison, here's a character "stealing" so-called party loot;
I'm really not interested man. A player is not the GM and doesn't get to attack my character the way the GM does unless I've agreed to it.

What I'm defending is the notion that theft from the party is not the problem; the player that does it in a problematic way is. Stealing from the party can be a constructive roleplaying experience and what I take issue with is the flat refusal to even consider that it might be.
Sure. When the rogue loses a finger, he has learned a valuable lesson. I agree that's pretty constructive.

[MadBear]

You really don't. You will be stuck attempting impossible saving throw DCs while the wizard orders you around. I mean... I guess you can roleplay how you execute his orders throughout the day. But this is a very different character than the one you set out to play.


And what's so bad about playing a character than the one you set out to play?.

...... and at this point we've passed jumping the shark. We've jumped over the freaking moon. The fact that you're willing to allow the party wizard permanently mind control your character as an ok act to defend your point is patently absurd.

[Cl0001]

In my opinion stealing is up to the players. If they want to run the risk of stealing to get some gold or an item than they can. The problem occurs when the stealing becomes so rampant that it distracts from the campaign. As for resolving stealing, I usually just do a quick rp scenario with a couple of skill checks to resolve the stealing. If they get caught, the consequences are (usually) minor. I usually have the guards catch them and then give them either a fine or have them serve a prison sentence where they'll lose xp or some stats(temporarily). If it's a campaign point where they'll have to steal an item then the mission should not be based purely off of checks. If they fail in this case the punishment is either a long prison sentence or death.

[Delicious Taffy]

Yeah... This thread didn't just go downhill. It put on a wing suit, took a running leap into an erupting volcano, rode the ash cloud into the sky, and then flew to the nearest intact town and started dive-bombing pedestrians.

Look, if you want to play a character who steals from the party, ask your fellow players if it's going to bother them. Don't belittle them for not wanting to play the game that way, don't whine that your precious agency is being stripped from you, and don't act like playing as a backstabbing jag is your sacred birthright. That's literally as complex as this needs to be. Can it not just be left at that? Is there really a need to carry on and on with increasingly-absurd examples and comparisons? Just consult your group, and then respect their decisions.

[Pex]

I'd say from my perspective it's not that you have no right to be upset, it's that I don't understand why it bothers you. I can't tell you how to feel about it. Were we to sit down at the same table as you and Pex, it would be on me to decide if I belong at that table. If you were to join my table, it would be on you to decide if you can deal with a group where these things might happen and the expectation is you don't get worked up about it.

I had quit a game like that where it was every PC for himself, even campaign plot be damned at times. It was my first ever 5E game. Fortunately I was experienced enough to know it was the players who were donkey cavities and not the game itself encouraging it, unlike Paranoia. I have since found other gaming groups where such behavior isn't tolerated. In my old Pathfinder group a player like that joined in a game session after I did. Thankfully the players led by me were able to shun her into quitting after her second game, and it was 12 years of playing bliss.

[JellyPooga]

The GM is not a player.

Yes. He (or she). Is.

I cannot express how fundamentally I disagree with your statement here. Just...Words fail me. Not that I think your not entitled to your opinion on it, but I personally can't reconcile the notion that the GM is any less a player than anyone else at the table.


...... and at this point we've passed jumping the shark. We've jumped over the freaking moon. The fact that you're willing to allow the party wizard permanently mind control your character as an ok act to defend your point is patently absurd.

The fact that I, personally, am willing to let my character lose character agency, is rather beside the point, not a defence of it. It's also a case that someone else brought up, I'll note, thinking it comparable (somehow) to pocketing a little extra loot that supposedly belongs to the "party". What's more absurd? Me being able to enjoy a fringe-case play-style or someone trying to prove me wrong by bringing up such extreme examples?

I'll make my statement again; I'm not defending douche-bag players that ignore the wishes of their fellow players OOC. I'm defending the notion the stealing (whether from another PC or NPCs, either makes no odds to me really) and whatever consequences arise from it can be a constructive roleplaying experience. What I take issue with is the flat refusal to even consider that it might, possibly, could ever be.

If I sat down at a table and any discussion about the subject was shut down as quickly and succinctly as it was by the likes of Pex in his first response to the OP, I'd consider that a reasonable cause for concern about who I was playing with and what else they might be as...unmoving about.

[djreynolds]

In the campaign I'm running, our rogue tried to steal from another.

Now its not just sleight of hand vs perception, but also deception vs insight....

"What have you been up to?"

"Sneaking"

[Delicious Taffy]

No players should ever, under any circumstances, have their character steal from another character. If they even consider it, they should be sent in for a psych evaluation, because they might be a dangerous sociopath. Stealing from your fellow PCs is objectively horrible, because literally nobody on Earth wants their friends or travelling companions to take their things. It's the ultimate betrayal of player trust.


I'd argue that every player under the sun should at least dabble in inter-party theft. If you're in a group where that sort of thing flat-out isn't allowed, you should leave, because they're probably all entitled little brats who think they can just have their way at every turn. Stealing from your fellow PCs is objectively fun for all, because everyone on Earth can appreciate the way you're exercising your freedom of choice. It's the ultimate expression of player agency.


There's a middle ground, and it involves double-checking whether stealing from each other is alright for this particular campaign. Not everyone is going to want that in every campaign, but you never know what a group may be interested in, once they've wrapped up their current game. Always, always, always see if robbing each other fits into the campaign, and if it doesn't, you can try again in the next one. Just don't make any morality judgments regarding your fellow players if they take a particularly stubborn approach to telling you whether or not they want PvP theft in the game. It's a subjective thing, after all.


Alright, now I've taken both extreme sides, as well as the middle ground. Feel free to pick any one of them apart on a fundamental level and decide what they mean. I'll roll with it and respond naturally.

[djreynolds]

Its fun either way, but it can get out of hand and as the DM you are just watching PvP BS instead of focusing on the actual adventure.

And some players don't want this, and so I will usually "sue" for the players who do not want this in the game... but you are right, as you may not be able to stop this from happening without ruining player agency.

I think you have to, as a DM, ask why? Is this really important? And realize that other situations like this will come up.... even in WOTC adventures. Perhaps not stealing, but aspects of betrayal in some adventures are written in.

Who is at your table? Is stealing that important? Is it just comic relief? Did you just ruin the game for another player?

[JellyPooga]

I had quit a game like that where it was every PC for himself, even campaign plot be damned at times. It was my first ever 5E game. Fortunately I was experienced enough to know it was the players who were donkey cavities and not the game itself encouraging it, unlike Paranoia. I have since found other gaming groups where such behavior isn't tolerated. In my old Pathfinder group a player like that joined in a game session after I did. Thankfully the players led by me were able to shun her into quitting after her second game, and it was 12 years of playing bliss.

Woah woah woah...I only skimmed this the first time around, but I went back and read it again and I have to say...I'm a little lost for words.

Let me get it straight;

1) Girl joins your group
2) Girl starts playing in a way you don't like.
3) You encourage all other players to shun her to the point that she leaves the game after two sessions.
4) You consider this acceptable social behaviour in an environment that is supposed to be enjoyable for all.

Did you even talk to the girl before you led your lynch mob?

[Delicious Taffy]

Did you even talk to the girl before you led your lynch mob?

Uh, yeah, wow. Some context is definitely needed here, because this looks suspiciously like bullying. Not saying it is, but it definitely looks like it. Please share with the class, because this looks pretty horrible on your part. I mean, you can't even really say "It was years ago, and at least I learned from the experience", because you're holding it up today, as an example of a good way to handle players you don't like.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes. He (or she). Is.

I cannot express how fundamentally I disagree with your statement here. Just...Words fail me. Not that I think your not entitled to your opinion on it, but I personally can't reconcile the notion that the GM is any less a player than anyone else at the table.
I think we've established that we're coming at this from completely different perspectives.

The DM is a player in the sense that if you ask him "Hey, what are you doing Saturday night?" he can reply "I'm playing D&D with my friends."

But the DM isn't a player in the sense that he controls a player character. Rather, he is in charge of the game world and pitting the players against challenges and obstacles and enemies. I mean... that much is obvious. It is why he has a title *different* from Player. He goes by Dungeon Master.

I'm not going to pretend that we have the same expectations from the DM that we should have from fellow players. The onus is on you to explain why a player has the same leeway as a DM to attack the party. And saying "Players and DMs are the same" is not sufficient justification, because it's not true.

It's also a case that someone else brought up, I'll note, thinking it comparable (somehow) to pocketing a little extra loot that supposedly belongs to the "party". What's more absurd? Me being able to enjoy a fringe-case play-style or someone trying to prove me wrong by bringing up such extreme examples?
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong with that example. You commented that you would just absolutely be thrilled to play a character being robbed by a fellow teammate wizard casting Suggestion on you every night. This seemed strange to me, so I asked what the wizard would have to do for you to tell the player to please stop. Because I figured we'll have common ground somewhere, it's just a matter of degrees. But you responded that literally nothing would cross a line for you, barring a few stipulations (metagaming, personal attack, in character). I was suspicious of that, so I came up with the extreme example. The point was for you to say "Well, of course that is too far. No one would want to play that." and after finding that common ground we could work our way back to determine what is *too far* for you as far as pvp actions go.

But instead, you just said that you'd be ok having someone else virtually completely controlling your character at the table. Which I still don't understand, and am still suspicious is actually true.

[MadBear]

Uh, yeah, wow. Some context is definitely needed here, because this looks suspiciously like bullying. Not saying it is, but it definitely looks like it. Please share with the class, because this looks pretty horrible on your part. I mean, you can't even really say "It was years ago, and at least I learned from the experience", because you're holding it up today, as an example of a good way to handle players you don't like.

despite agreeing with Pex's point in stealing, I to think this could use context because it sounds like bullying to me as well.

[JellyPooga]

But instead, you just said that you'd be ok having someone else virtually completely controlling your character at the table. Which I still don't understand, and am still suspicious is actually true.

For me, it's all just roleplaying. Someone else might be calling the shots, but I still get to play the character. Wizard says "jump" and I can still choose to ask "how high?" or even make that decision for myself, based on how I think my character might react under such circumstances. It's no different (for me) to the GM putting the group on some light rails to get the plot rolling, moving the game to a particular location (e.g. "at sea" or "jail break") or whatever else he wants to throw our way.

Likewise, whether it's stealing from a party member, mind-controlling one or breaking arms, it's not any different to the Paladin player insisting that some of the parties reward be donated to charity, the Fighter insisting he duel the bad-guy, the Cleric demanding that we hunt the Vampire or any other player action. Even as minor a thing as killing a foe in combat infringes on my characters agency to perform that action himself.
Everything and anything a character does infringes on other characters' agency in some small way; it's just that the scale of it is irrelevant to me; my agency as a player is not impinged upon because player agency is entirely reactive to the situation presented at the time of your "action window".

To go back to our Wizards Thrall example, if the player that's "calling the shots" is going into such exacting detail that I don't get to play my character, then that's not a problem with him using magic to control my character, but the player taking up far too much game-time with describing his commands, OOC controlling my character and (technically) cheating because that's not how any mind-control works in the rules. That's a problem player, not a problem action.

[Pex]

Woah woah woah...I only skimmed this the first time around, but I went back and read it again and I have to say...I'm a little lost for words.

Let me get it straight;

1) Girl joins your group
2) Girl starts playing in a way you don't like.
3) You encourage all other players to shun her to the point that she leaves the game after two sessions.
4) You consider this acceptable social behaviour in an environment that is supposed to be enjoyable for all.

Did you even talk to the girl before you led your lynch mob?

Funny how you're not upset that I had to quit a game because I was the odd man out. Why wasn't I entitled to my fun?

The player in question saw how cooperative we were and bonded. She was excited to join in to disrupt the camaraderie. We tried to have her be more friendly. She wouldn't have it. The DM talked to her. She wouldn't have it. She left deciding the game was not for her. None of us were sorry.

By shunning I mean once I realized there was no chance she would be more cooperative and friendly I stopped trying and literally ignored the player. I've had my fill of "That Guy" players by then and learned that "I'm just roleplaying" is no excuse to be a jerk player. I don't apologize. For the game I quit, since almost all the players were jerk players I wasn't going to change how the game would play out so I left. I would learn the campaign went kaput a few months later.

[JellyPooga]

Funny how you're not upset that I had to quit a game because I was the odd man out. Why wasn't I entitled to my fun?

It's your choice to leave if the game isn't to your liking. Not every game will be, so either you stick it out and try to enjoy it for what it is or you quit and try another group and/or wait for the next game which is more to your liking.


The player in question saw how cooperative we were and bonded. She was excited to join in to disrupt the camaraderie. We tried to have her be more friendly. She wouldn't have it. The DM talked to her. She wouldn't have it. She left deciding the game was not for her. None of us were sorry.

And that's fair enough. She came in with an expectation to score own goals be a problematic player and left because she didn't succeed.


By shunning I mean once I realized there was no chance she would be more cooperative and friendly I stopped trying and literally ignored the player.

This I might have handled a little differently. Different opinions on game style is no reason to be uncivil, but hey *shrugs*, it seems to have resolved relatively peacefully.

I apologise if my post was acusatory; I don't like to point a finger, but sometimes things needs highlighting in case someone gets the wrong idea and tries to copy-cat...

[Pex]

In an attempt to make this thread more fun and slightly hijack but still on topic, let's take Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as an example of discussion. Ignore the movie's awesomeness and universe. Pretend the Guardians are a D&D party.

The party is hired to protect a treasure from an attack by a Demon from the Abyss. During the attack Rocket the rogue steals some of that treasure for himself. Now, he didn't steal from the party. It was not party treasure in the first place. The payment from the NPC Patrons, the Sovereign, is the party treasure. It was in character for the rogue to do what he did. The fighter Starlord admonishes him but doesn't turn him in and does what he can to help the party escape the Sovereign's wrath.

If it was many, many years ago I as Starlord the paladin, truth be told, would probably have sided with the Sovereign and handed Rocket over to them immediately. However, I have learned a lot of pragmatism since then and no longer need operations for sticks while playing a paladin :smallyuk:. Also, Starlord is a fighter, not a paladin. I would still try to get the party to escape but I would be p'd off at Rocket's player for adding unnecessary complications to the game. Potential allies have now become enemies when it wasn't necessary nor the DM's intent. If it was this one time thing I'd get over it. If this became a regular thing with Rocket, always stealing from our potential friends, it becomes a major issue that's ruining the fun of the game.

Discuss.
:smallbiggrin:

[JellyPooga]

In an attempt to make this thread more fun and slightly hijack but still on topic, let's take Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as an example of discussion. Ignore the movie's awesomeness and universe. Pretend the Guardians are a D&D party.

The party is hired to protect a treasure from an attack by a Demon from the Abyss. During the attack Rocket the rogue steals some of that treasure for himself. Now, he didn't steal from the party. It was not party treasure in the first place. The payment from the NPC Patrons, the Sovereign, is the party treasure. It was in character for the rogue to do what he did. The fighter Starlord admonishes him but doesn't turn him in and does what he can to help the party escape the Sovereign's wrath.

If it was many, many years ago I as Starlord the paladin, truth be told, would probably have sided with the Sovereign and handed Rocket over to them immediately. However, I have learned a lot of pragmatism since then and no longer need operations for sticks while playing a paladin :smallyuk:. Also, Starlord is a fighter, not a paladin. I would still try to get the party to escape but I would be p'd off at Rocket's player for adding unnecessary complications to the game. Potential allies have now become enemies when it wasn't necessary nor the DM's intent. If it was this one time thing I'd get over it. If this became a regular thing with Rocket, always stealing from our potential friends, it becomes a major issue that's ruining the fun of the game.

Discuss.
:smallbiggrin:

Well, to address the last point first; Rocket does do it regularly (or so it's implied) and isn't exactly charming to his party either. So much so that it's implied in the film that the party is considering booting him out. On the other foot (paw?), the whole reason behind Rockets behaviour is part and parcel of who he is as a character and his character development within the party.

GotG is a good example of a PvP/antagonism friendly party, IMO; they start out as antagonists of one another and through their adventures develop into a party that's more cohesive. But it's a gradual development and if any one of the Players involved had jumped the gun and put a stop to any of it, instead of getting a sequel, we'd be watching something else.

[Delicious Taffy]

This is going in a completely alien direction. Are you saying Star Lord is a paladin or a fighter? If he's a fighter, why even bring him up as a paladin? Immediately afterward, you said he's a fighter. But forget Star Lord for a minute, because he's not relevant. Rocket jacks some treasure he was hired to guard from the Bad Guy. Alright, fair enough. Nobody has said anything about this sort of thing being wrong. You mention it being an unnecessary complication, but that's not really what's being discussed, at this point. The point of contention is specifically inter-party theft. If you'd had Rocket swipe some of Drax's reward in your hypothetical, then it would be a decent example. The only "complication" added is Star Lord deciding not to turn his own companion in to the guy he stole from, which is... basic loyalty? The only way that complicates things is if Star Lord's player has a moral friggin' crisis over it.

Sure, if the employer finds out he was stolen from, he'll probably be cross, but that's pretty inconsequential for a team who he specifically hired to guard something for him. Barring some odd fringe cases, he's probably not a bad enough dude to take on the team, and if he hired them, he probably considered them the best available candidates. The only consequence you'll get from him is maybe a band of assassins, which basically equates to a potentially-memorable encounter. This is all standard RPG fare, unless there are details I'm missing. What's not generally considered common practice is what people have been arguing over, namely theft between PCs. Since that didn't happen in your hypothetical, the only consequences are all normal things a party could expect from someone who feels they double-crossed him.

[Laurefindel]

In an attempt to make this thread more fun and slightly hijack but still on topic, let's take Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as an example of discussion. Ignore the movie's awesomeness and universe. Pretend the Guardians are a D&D party.

Yeah, The Hobbit (Whereas Bilbo steals the Arkenstone, triggers the wrath of a dragon that completely destroys the biggest local settlement, and provokes a full-scale war) could also have been a good case study for this thread. I almost did a few pages ago. In this case, the DM had to improvise the coming of a whole army of bad guys to save his story.

Now we can argue whether The Hobbit is a good story or not, but good novel/film stories don't necessarily make good basis for a good RPG game. Actually, The Hobbit sounds like a game where the DM had a hard time keeping his PCs on track. Probably why he got all railroad-happy in DM of the Ring...

[Sigreid]

In an attempt to make this thread more fun and slightly hijack but still on topic, let's take Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as an example of discussion. Ignore the movie's awesomeness and universe. Pretend the Guardians are a D&D party.

The party is hired to protect a treasure from an attack by a Demon from the Abyss. During the attack Rocket the rogue steals some of that treasure for himself. Now, he didn't steal from the party. It was not party treasure in the first place. The payment from the NPC Patrons, the Sovereign, is the party treasure. It was in character for the rogue to do what he did. The fighter Starlord admonishes him but doesn't turn him in and does what he can to help the party escape the Sovereign's wrath.

If it was many, many years ago I as Starlord the paladin, truth be told, would probably have sided with the Sovereign and handed Rocket over to them immediately. However, I have learned a lot of pragmatism since then and no longer need operations for sticks while playing a paladin :smallyuk:. Also, Starlord is a fighter, not a paladin. I would still try to get the party to escape but I would be p'd off at Rocket's player for adding unnecessary complications to the game. Potential allies have now become enemies when it wasn't necessary nor the DM's intent. If it was this one time thing I'd get over it. If this became a regular thing with Rocket, always stealing from our potential friends, it becomes a major issue that's ruining the fun of the game.

Discuss.
:smallbiggrin:

Ok, lets look at them.

1. We have Drax. Literally lost everything. Comes from a species that processes things and emotions so differently that other species have trouble relating to him. Stays with the others because they helped him get his revenge on Ronin and they are at least willing to tolerate his awkwardness and self destructive desire for retribution.

2. We have Rocket. A earn animal that was literally tortured into sentience before being abandoned by or escaping his creator. Wants to be liked and have friends, but is so convinced of that impossibility that he reflexively pushes everyone but Groot away and makes plans for when they will abandon him. Has a very sibling like relationship with Groot where they are absolutely loyal to each other but also a bit mean to each other.

3. Gamora: Raised in an environment where she was forced to savagely fight the people she might would form close relationships with, knowing that if she lost she would be tortured and remade, and if she won, the other would be. Seems to want the belonging of the Guardians, but doesn't fully buy into it yet. Looks to me like she's making contingency plans.

4. Groot: Really don't know anything about him. His relationship with Rocket suggests to me that either they both escaped the same tormentor, or have been through some really bad stuff together. Those are usually the only two ways that kind of a bond forms.

5. Star Lord: Kidnapped by aliens on the night his mother died. Raised to be self sufficient and with no respect for any law he thinks he can get away with breaking by a thief, pirate and raider captain who having been sold into slavery at birth has no idea how to be family, but tries really hard (mostly failing) to be a good parent.

As of the two movies we have seen, I don't see you playing in the group. They are not heroes. They are a group of emotionally damaged people, hoping that eventually they can trust each other, who have done very heroic things when they were basically out of wrong choices to make. As presented, it's probable that every one of them has taken some extra the others don't know about and squirreled it away for the day when the other 4 let them down. At this stage, they all probably take an extra handful of loot when the others aren't looking, break any rule that they think they can get away with, and have a plan for when it all goes south. Another movie or two and they may be past that. Another adventure or two and that cynical rogue looking out for number one may feel close enough to the party that he doesn't grab an extra handful anymore. But you'll never know because you want instant koombya.

[Dr.Samurai]

But you'll never know because you want instant koombya.
Yes, because you can't handle your super interesting pvp actions as well as you think you can. You're not James Gunn writing and directing a movie. Instead, you're the reason the Fellowship breaks apart. Because it was cool when we were just arguing about stuff. But the moment you tried to steal something from your ally, he realized he couldn't continue adventuring alongside you.

"Oh, but that's my arc though. Don't you get it? I am like, super loyal to my country, and my people. And like... I don't understand the true power of the ring. My people are dying because they're fighting the forces of Mordor, and I think the ring can help us beat Sauron and his forces. See? There's a really cool reason that I'm doing this. It makes sense. It's in character and makes for a wonderful story."

"Uh, sure. But we can't keep adventuring together if my character feels like your character is going to keep trying to take the ring. Do... do you understand that? Your actions are problematic and there's no real way that we can keep adventuring together if you're going to keep doing them."

"But... I just explained how it's a cool arc and a great stor---"

"Yeah, I know! But dude, we're not making a movie, we're playing a ****ing game, what are you not---"

"Yeah, but my cool charact---"

And so on and so forth.

[GlenSmash!]

Agh. I think I caught some movie spoilers. Spoiler those things people. That's literally what the feature is for.

On to the topic at had. If I ever needed more proof that Session 0s are extremely beneficial to starting a campaign I just have to remember this thread.

[Dr.Samurai]

Agh. I think I caught some movie spoilers. Spoiler those things people. That's literally what the feature is for.

On to the topic at had. If I ever needed more proof that Session 0s are extremely beneficial to starting a campaign I just have to remember this thread.
Sorry, I figured people would know already that Boromir tries to take the ring from Frodo... :smallredface:






:smallwink:

[Sigreid]

Yes, because you can't handle your super interesting pvp actions as well as you think you can. You're not James Gunn writing and directing a movie. Instead, you're the reason the Fellowship breaks apart. Because it was cool when we were just arguing about stuff. But the moment you tried to steal something from your ally, he realized he couldn't continue adventuring alongside you.

"Oh, but that's my arc though. Don't you get it? I am like, super loyal to my country, and my people. And like... I don't understand the true power of the ring. My people are dying because they're fighting the forces of Mordor, and I think the ring can help us beat Sauron and his forces. See? There's a really cool reason that I'm doing this. It makes sense. It's in character and makes for a wonderful story."

"Uh, sure. But we can't keep adventuring together if my character feels like your character is going to keep trying to take the ring. Do... do you understand that? Your actions are problematic and there's no real way that we can keep adventuring together if you're going to keep doing them."

"But... I just explained how it's a cool arc and a great stor---"

"Yeah, I know! But dude, we're not making a movie, we're playing a ****ing game, what are you not---"

"Yeah, but my cool charact---"

And so on and so forth.

You're projecting.

[Pex]

Ok, lets look at them.

1. We have Drax. Literally lost everything. Comes from a species that processes things and emotions so differently that other species have trouble relating to him. Stays with the others because they helped him get his revenge on Ronin and they are at least willing to tolerate his awkwardness and self destructive desire for retribution.

2. We have Rocket. A earn animal that was literally tortured into sentience before being abandoned by or escaping his creator. Wants to be liked and have friends, but is so convinced of that impossibility that he reflexively pushes everyone but Groot away and makes plans for when they will abandon him. Has a very sibling like relationship with Groot where they are absolutely loyal to each other but also a bit mean to each other.

3. Gamora: Raised in an environment where she was forced to savagely fight the people she might would form close relationships with, knowing that if she lost she would be tortured and remade, and if she won, the other would be. Seems to want the belonging of the Guardians, but doesn't fully buy into it yet. Looks to me like she's making contingency plans.

4. Groot: Really don't know anything about him. His relationship with Rocket suggests to me that either they both escaped the same tormentor, or have been through some really bad stuff together. Those are usually the only two ways that kind of a bond forms.

5. Star Lord: Kidnapped by aliens on the night his mother died. Raised to be self sufficient and with no respect for any law he thinks he can get away with breaking by a thief, pirate and raider captain who having been sold into slavery at birth has no idea how to be family, but tries really hard (mostly failing) to be a good parent.

As of the two movies we have seen, I don't see you playing in the group. They are not heroes. They are a group of emotionally damaged people, hoping that eventually they can trust each other, who have done very heroic things when they were basically out of wrong choices to make. As presented, it's probable that every one of them has taken some extra the others don't know about and squirreled it away for the day when the other 4 let them down. At this stage, they all probably take an extra handful of loot when the others aren't looking, break any rule that they think they can get away with, and have a plan for when it all goes south. Another movie or two and they may be past that. Another adventure or two and that cynical rogue looking out for number one may feel close enough to the party that he doesn't grab an extra handful anymore. But you'll never know because you want instant koombya.

You're not wrong. I recognize it in myself and have recently on purpose tried to play characters against my normal self. Unfortunately the campaign ended, but I had a great time playing a Sorcerer who was a pompous noble, enjoyed time at a brothel, and was gungho stealing a treasure hoard on a sunken ship right under the nose of the church of the sea god reclaiming it. It was a beautiful everything went wrong and right blast of a heist. I used my proceeds to open a clothing store. I would later befriend an NPC thieves' guild master. I would not have played such a character 5 years ago. However, I never stole from the party or surreptitiously kept extra loot. I would never do that and no one in that group did either. We were all scoundrels in our ways, but we were a team. I can get behind being in a party of thieves but never against each other.

[Grim Portent]

I've adventured with characters who stole from me, tried to kill me, sabotaged my gear and on one occasion cut my legs off while I was mind controlled (they were cybernetic already, not that I would have minded much anyway, the replacements just cost downtime and money when you get down to it.)*

Generally the party bands together not out of mutual trust so much as there being no one who can be trusted as much as the other PCs and who is comparably useful, mutual self interest more than IC friendship basically, except in D&D, where we usually become close friends united by our desire to do evil and/or profitable things and enjoyment of each other's company IC.

We form intra-party factions based on differences in ethics and methods, occasionally have physical clashes between the more headstrong characters. Killing each other is so rare as to have only happened once, but taking actions that could kill others is not unusual when morals clash. Once had a fellow PC who hated pirates shoot at a pirate ship while the rest of us were looting a merchant ship alongside the pirates who owned it.

This kind of dynamic has been the norm to various extents across half a dozen groups now. One group of 4 PCs we had divided in half based on Radical vs Puritan during a 40k game but never came to blows despite lots of in character threats, an All Flesh game saw the party divide into pragmatics and paranoids essentially, with one violent clash and a lot of verbal ones, a Vampire game had power struggles between the party even when our goals were aligned because heirarchy matters, with clashes magical, verbal and physical, D&D has tended to avoid divisions, but instead embraces a sort of 'evil brotherhood' kind of dynamic with a few PCs sharing a god and motivations and the others tagging along for personal gain, which also happened in a few non-D&D games, with the party becoming united in villainy.


Point being, I don't really mind PCs stealing from me or the party in games, I was even quite happy to keep working with a guy who cut my legs off after all. Wouldn't do it myself because I rarely play sneaky characters in RPGs, preferring diplomacy, magic and combat skills, and rarely need spare change in game anyway, but it doesn't bother me. I'm more inclined to be annoyed when someone steals from an NPC we didn't want to upset, because that just adds complications to any scheme we have going as a group or as individuals.

I've also never played with someone who minded it. One guy I used to play with before he moved to attend uni found it annoying at times, but wasn't averse to initiating PvP, occasionally for petty reasons. Last incident he shared with me was him conspiring to kill another PCs minion because it was completely useless and he and another player found it annoying because resources were being wasted keeping it alive when it couldn't even hurt their enemies.


* Amusingly my brother had a similar experience with a completely seperate group who blew his characters legs off with a grenade because his power armour was being controlled by a hostile AI which nearly killed two of them, then dumped his near death carcass into a meat freezer while they went to finish what they were doing. He got patched up later and got right back into his role, though they never let him touch any technology they found before the tech guy could look it over after that and one of the PCs he nearly killed never really trusted him fully after that because of a prior rivalry.

[Dr.Samurai]

You're projecting.
I don't see how. I don't play disruptive characters and then insist it's a grave injustice to ask me not to be disruptive.

You say we want instant koombaya, but that's not really the case. You're conflating "don't steal from us or attack us" with "everyone loves each other and agrees on everything and each night we all give each other a kiss on the forehead and tuck each other in".

My point with LotR, since it was brought up originally and we're back on movies again, is that you can absolutely have party conflict, but avoid crossing the pvp line. Gimli and Legolas are fine until one tries to stab the other. Boromir's lack of faith in the plan is fine, until he assaults Frodo and tries to take the ring for himself.

As I type this though, it occurs to me that you're saying I'm projecting because I myself can't handle pvp well. You may be right. I wouldn't know because I don't go into the game planning on attacking my allies because my character is so kewl. But I know from experience that it rarely goes well. And not because it's targeting me. I've sat by, as collateral damage, plenty of times as one player tries to play his sweet rogue thief concept on another player and it goes down hill fast. I've read plenty of threads on these very forums telling an all too familiar story. So, I'm sure there are some of you that are light years ahead of your time that can handle pvp just fine. But for the rest of us, my advice is to still try to avoid pvp. It rarely goes well.

[Sigreid]

As I type this though, it occurs to me that you're saying I'm projecting because I myself can't handle pvp well. .

Yes, this is where I was saying you were projecting because you made a pretty blunt statement saying that those of us who are ok with some palming of treasure, etc. aren't as cool with it as we think.

I've been pretty consistent in that I don't actually steal from the party, other than one rogue who would take items and hand them right back...practicing, but that it doesn't bother me that the rogue in the party currently pockets a few extra gold when he can get away with it. I've also been pretty consistent that if you want to play that character and you see the other players getting upset you either need to stop or you need to leave. Just like if you get upset at that kind of thing and you see that it's not considered a big deal at a table you can either deal with it or leave. I do confess that if you are getting worked up over that I'm going to wonder what else you are going to get upset over if someone does it. For example, if you start a bar fight with a half orc barbarian or insult the prince, are you going to assume that I have to back your stupidity? Conversely, if I decide I want to start a bar fight, are you going to throw a fit because I'm not civilized? I'll be watching to see where other lines are and evaluating all along whether the fun I'm having counterbalances any of these unspoken rules. If the rules are spoken, I can just decide up front before I even join.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes, this is where I was saying you were projecting because you made a pretty blunt statement saying that those of us who are ok with some palming of treasure, etc. aren't as cool with it as we think.
Sorry Sigreid, I could have been clearer. I believe that you're cool with the scenarios you've described (I'm more skeptical of JellyPooga's basically "anything goes" claim). I meant that people aren't as good at pulling off pvp as they think they are. I don't mean you specifically, but in general, it doesn't go well in my experience. You can have a great idea for an amazing character arc, but stealing from allies or attacking them doesn't typically go to plan unless everything has been determined ahead of time. At which point maybe you are writing a movie, I don't know.

Let me see if I can sum up a few of the reasons why I'm against PvP in general, despite admitting that if the group is okay with it, it should be fine:

1. Bandwidth issue. As mentioned before, there is limited time at the table, and I'd like to spend it playing through the adventure. Resolving your rogue's theft of our things, or getting him out of jail, or resolving petty and ultimately pointless arguments between PCs wastes that time. Let's adventure, let's kill monsters, beat skill challenges, find treasure, and save the world. I'm really not interested in your character wasting my time with his pvp BS.

2. It doesn't go over well in a lot of groups. That's been my experience, and the experience of many others. It leaves players angry, and causes OOC tension and arguments. Which, again, wastes time, but also causes hurt feelings. It's better to avoid than to get into fights with friends irl over it.

3. It's rarely interesting. I roll my eyes at BvS and Captain America: Civil War. The stories rarely justify the actions. The resolutions don't tend to make sense. I'm not interested in seeing some contrived reasons to get the good guys to fight each other, followed by a contrived reason for them to kiss and make up. Let's fight the bad guys please! There's plenty to do there before we have to dip into the "oh man, the good guys are grown ups so they have disagreements that result in fist fights, oh man it's sooo cool!!!" types of storylines.

Anyways, all in my opinion of course.

[Sigreid]

Sorry Sigreid, I could have been clearer. I believe that you're cool with the scenarios you've described (I'm more skeptical of JellyPooga's basically "anything goes" claim). I meant that people aren't as good at pulling off pvp as they think they are. I don't mean you specifically, but in general, it doesn't go well in my experience. You can have a great idea for an amazing character arc, but stealing from allies or attacking them doesn't typically go to plan unless everything has been determined ahead of time. At which point maybe you are writing a movie, I don't know.

Let me see if I can sum up a few of the reasons why I'm against PvP in general, despite admitting that if the group is okay with it, it should be fine:

1. Bandwidth issue. As mentioned before, there is limited time at the table, and I'd like to spend it playing through the adventure. Resolving your rogue's theft of our things, or getting him out of jail, or resolving petty and ultimately pointless arguments between PCs wastes that time. Let's adventure, let's kill monsters, beat skill challenges, find treasure, and save the world. I'm really not interested in your character wasting my time with his pvp BS.

2. It doesn't go over well in a lot of groups. That's been my experience, and the experience of many others. It leaves players angry, and causes OOC tension and arguments. Which, again, wastes time, but also causes hurt feelings. It's better to avoid than to get into fights with friends irl over it.

3. It's rarely interesting. I roll my eyes at BvS and Captain America: Civil War. The stories rarely justify the actions. The resolutions don't tend to make sense. I'm not interested in seeing some contrived reasons to get the good guys to fight each other, followed by a contrived reason for them to kiss and make up. Let's fight the bad guys please! There's plenty to do there before we have to dip into the "oh man, the good guys are grown ups so they have disagreements that result in fist fights, oh man it's sooo cool!!!" types of storylines.

Anyways, all in my opinion of course.

No worries. I'll make what I hope to be my final point. There are a lot of people who do just want to get to the adventure, and that's a fair way to play. But a lot of people play for a couple hours a week or a month of escapism. A little time to fantasize about being something they aren't and can't be. That friend of yours who is always honest and dependable may just want a few hours of pretending that he's not in an environment where no one gets hurt and nothing really goes missing. That guy who is not very strong or brave, my experience is he usually wants to be the paladin standing up for what's right with courage and strength. The socially awkward guy usually seems to be the one who wants to play the captain charisma bard. I usually play chaotic neutral because my fantasy is not doing harm, but basically doing whatever i want without fear of the consequences (consequences come, I just don't fear them). I think this is why murder-hobo is such a popular style of play since most people aren't psychopaths who kill anyone who looks at them cross ways, but I think most of us have wanted to a time or two. While I prefer the adventure not be slowed down too much, I'm willing to allow a little slop time and missing resources for my character to let people fantasize about being the greedy, horrible, murderous (or noble) person they aren't for a little bit of the game time. And I appreciate that same consideration from the people I'm playing my fantasy games with.