Sharing loot? "You didn't help get it so why should you get some of it?"

[Spo]

So last night we just finished a big quest in Rime of the FrostMaiden. This adventure spanned two gaming sessions and involved us attacking a strong hold, fighting some bosses, and handling a significant encounter afterwards (vague as to avoid spoilers). Having accomplished these tasks, the GM posted the reward the entire party will receive at the beginning of next session. It's not tons (not like Waterdeep money), but it is nice chunk of change. Loot has been sparse so far in this campaign (just made lvl 7 and I don't think any of us has earned over 1000 gp throughout the whole thing - not even close).

One of our players in party of 5 couldn't make the last two sessions. First time he said he was tired and wanted to do some chores and relax after work (we play every other Tuesday night on Roll20). The second time, he was entertaining visiting family.

He GMs our other game on a very consistent basis every other Sunday, and has attended about 70 to 80 percent of our Rime game.

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in? No magic items were found, only money. My character would say "no", but I as a player would shrug and say, "sure, why not?"

[Sigreid]

So this adventure covered more than 2 sessions, but the payout was all stacked in the last 2 sessions? If that's the case, and he was there and a good party member for the rest of it I'd include him in the payout. Part of it is he will have been cheated for the sessions he did participate in otherwise and part of it is that pretend gold in a game isn't worth real hard feelings.

[MrStabby]

So last night we just finished a big quest in Rime of the FrostMaiden. This adventure spanned two gaming sessions and involved us attacking a strong hold, fighting some bosses, and handling a significant encounter afterwards (vague as to avoid spoilers). Having accomplished these tasks, the GM posted the reward the entire party will receive at the beginning of next session. It's not tons (not like Waterdeep money), but it is nice chunk of change. Loot has been sparse so far in this campaign (just made lvl 7 and I don't think any of us has earned over 1000 gp throughout the whole thing - not even close).

One of our players in party of 5 couldn't make the last two sessions. First time he said he was tired and wanted to do some chores and relax after work (we play every other Tuesday night on Roll20). The second time, he was entertaining visiting family.

He GMs our other game on a very consistent basis every other Sunday, and has attended about 70 to 80 percent of our Rime game.

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in? No magic items were found, only money. My character would say "no", but I as a player would shrug and say, "sure, why not?"

I would say yes.

Nothing will suck the fun out of a game faster than feeling you need to attend to get your reward. The game itself should be the reward. If he felt pressured to turn up when tired then he wouldnt have been much fun and would possibly resent it.

Find a way to work round it - maybe their character was off earning coin elsewhere and the party needs to pay off a debt so the amounts balance out.

[Guy Lombard-O]

One of our players in party of 5 couldn't make the last two sessions. First time he said he was tired and wanted to do some chores and relax after work (we play every other Tuesday night on Roll20). The second time, he was entertaining visiting family.

He GMs our other game on a very consistent basis every other Sunday, and has attended about 70 to 80 percent of our Rime game.

Yes. This is a consistent player who plays most of the time, and is there when he reasonably can be. Don't even think about it, include him in the payday.

[Spo]

So this adventure covered more than 2 sessions, but the payout was all stacked in the last 2 sessions? If that's the case, and he was there and a good party member for the rest of it I'd include him in the payout. Part of it is he will have been cheated for the sessions he did participate in otherwise and part of it is that pretend gold in a game isn't worth real hard feelings.

Sorry for the confusion. The loot in question is only from the last two sessions (we have played about a dozen sessions so far). He has earned treasure normally from the other sessions.

[Sigreid]

Sorry for the confusion. The loot in question is only from the last two sessions (we have played about a dozen sessions so far). He has earned treasure normally from the other sessions.

Yes, but your original post made it sound like the other loots were considerably lesser and the campaign stacks the real payoff in the end.

[Keravath]

Generally, I would say yes - include him in the loot distribution.

Why?

1) Is the character a part of your adventuring company and party? If the character wasn't able to accompany you on the current mission (wasn't played as an NPC) did you kick him out of the party? Did the character have a reason given for being absent? Did the character get sick? If the character was suffering from an illness does the party want to decide to say he doesn't get any reward because he was sick and could not come along? Was the character perhaps handling contacts in town for the group or performing some other non-adventuring task?

2) Does the party have an existing policy on absences? Deciding these things before the event happens saves a lot of hassle. Also, does the character receive the same milestone leveling or XP as the other characters? Do they fall behind in advancement because the player couldn't make it to the game? If they aren't falling behind in advancement why should they fall behind in rewards?

Finally, in general, it just generally isn't worth the angst and player friction shutting one of the characters out of rewards because the player was unable to make it. If the player has good reasons, attends regularly, and just can't make it for a couple of sessions then it is just a case of Real Life (tm) getting in the way - with work, family, children, significant others and all the other real world commitments folks have these days it can seem a miracle that any of us have time for games. It isn't worth penalizing someone under those circumstances.

[Dark.Revenant]

I can say you're probably more worried about jilting your fellow player than he is about losing out on some pretend money. Ask him if he wants a share, and if he asks for it, give it without a second thought.

[Rukelnikov]

In general I would include the missing character in the loot distribution, however this is subject to different party dynamics.

If its a band of brothers it shouldn't even be a question, if its a group of mercs contracted by someone, where the only bond between the PCs is working together as mercs, then maybe not.

In a campaign I played with my group a couple years ago I played a Genasi Merchant, eventually I got the ability to cast wish once a year, the first time I cast it was to free the soul of an NPC that was dear to one of the other PCs, and my character charged him a good chunk of loot for that, almost any other character of mine would have done it without asking for anything in return, but in that case, that PC wouldn't grant a wish without some kind of generous compensation.

My point being it depends first and foremost on how is the relation of the players irl, and secondly how is the relation of the PCs. If the PCs would include the other in the share, no need to argue, include and be done with it, if the PCs wouldn't, do you think the player in particular sees it that way too? That the expected thing in such a party would be not to get included in the loot distribution? If everyone agrees that's what should be done then its ok either way.

I think you should discuss it as a party, it will probably be a really short discussion.

[Theodoxus]

What was their character doing for the two sessions? If there was any risk of injury, even if they were in 'cardboard cutout' mode, they deserve a split. If the character was basically "logged out of the game and 100% safe", then yes, I'd follow the recommendations above, from asking the player if they're interested in a split - maybe even a smaller percentage if everyone else were burning resources and the absent character used none to just sucking it up for party unity.

A secondary consideration I'd ask is how would you feel if the tables were turned. If you'd skipped two sessions and found out on your return everyone was rolling in fat cash. You would be jealous and want your share, or happy for the party and content with what you already had?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Unless the player specifically says they don't want their share, split it evenly (same goes for xp). There's no need to make them feel bad or fall behind--the penalty for missing a session is that you didn't get to play, not that you lag behind the rest of the group. Anything on top of that is unnecessarily punative for a fun casual hobby.

[JonBeowulf]

Sure, he gets some. I can't think of a reason that would justify the crapstorm that denying him a share would cause.

This is one of the reasons I demand the players define the loot plan before the game begins. I don't really even care what it is and it doesn't matter if I'm playing or running... I want it clearly explained and accepted before the dice come out.

Get it all sorted out before any emotions are attached and there will be fewer problems during the game.

[OldTrees1]

They should get a share for a few reasons:
1) Real life comes first. Encourage your fellow players to maintain a sane game/life balance. Do I need to elaborate?
2) You said "loot has been sparse so far in this campaign" this campaign. That usually means that "nice chunk of change" was partially there for some previous areas of the campaign. Sort of like how loot is sparse in a dragon's dungeon until you get to the dragon's nest itself.
3) It is easier to divide the loot evenly than it is to deal with in character conflicts over loot.

[False God]

Unless there was up-front agreement otherwise, the character gets their share. Especially in the case of lair-like events where they were there to slog through all the unrewarding trash, only to miss the final confrontation.

[Samayu]

In my group, if you're not there you don't get a share of the loot. However (1) this was all clear up front, and (2) if loot is tied to a certain set of sessions, and you were there for some of them, you still get a share.

[Cikomyr2]

It's a game, and sometimes you have to suspend what your character would do to make sure everyone have fun.

It's probably already sad for your absent player when he missed games. Don't make it worse, and actually express that you guys missed him and it's always better when he's with you.

[ATHATH]

Unless the player specifically says they don't want their share, split it evenly (same goes for xp). There's no need to make them feel bad or fall behind--the penalty for missing a session is that you didn't get to play, not that you lag behind the rest of the group. Anything on top of that is unnecessarily punative for a fun casual hobby.
This. Punishing players for not being able to make it to a session or attending to things that are more important than a D&D game is very toxic. Even if you're a sociopath who values The Game above all else, keeping track of independent EXP totals tends to be a bit of a pain, and it's kind of awkward when everyone but one guy levels up at the end of a session.

[Segev]

I recommend finding an excuse to give him a share.

I would go so far as to recommend, unless it doesn't make sense for it to have happened, that his character have been there, even if he didn't do anything prominent enough for screen time.

[Tanarii]

Was his character absent as well? Then definitely no share. Just like XP.

A lack of a reward is not a punishment.

Although unlike XP, if the PC party has a formal (in-game) organization with a charter, the PC may not need to show up to get a reward. Depends what the charter spells out.

[MoiMagnus]

It depends what kind of reward you are talking about. I don't know the exact terminology, but there are two kinds of rewards in games:

(1) Progression rewards, that any player that does not actively work against them will get. Absence of those rewards is definitely a punishment. I'd argue in favour of sharing them.

(2) Special rewards, that were highly dependent on the skills and ideas of individual players. Absence of those rewards is the default state. I'd argue that those rewards should only be shared among the players that deserve them, unless the characters decide to share them.

Different tables have different balance of both kinds.
IME, quest rewards often fall onto the first category, as victory is the expected result, especially if the GM scale the difficulty of the encounters depending on the number of PCs.

[Glorthindel]

Was his character absent as well? Then definitely no share. Just like XP.

A lack of a reward is not a punishment.


This. The characters that took the risk get the reward. Sure, if the participating characters are happy to share out of cameraderie, that's fine, and commendable, but that should be there decision, not forced upon them by fiat.

[Mastikator]

In a game I GM for the players have a party treasure, IE any reward the party get they put into the treasury, then anything non-personal is paid for by the treasure. This wasn't even my idea, I can take zero credit. I'm so proud of my players. :smallbiggrin:

My suggestion: do that. Maybe half of all treasure found is added to the party treasure pile. Anything the party needs to pay, they pay with the party treasure first. Any personal expenditures are paid out of pocket. That way nobody is ever left out because they always have access to the party treasure.

[Tanarii]

(1) Progression rewards, that any player that does not actively work against them will get. Absence of those rewards is definitely a punishment. I'd argue in favour of sharing them.
No. They're a reward for participating. Not a punishment for not participating. It's a consequence. There is a difference.

If the DM docked XP or treasure for not participating explicitly in order to discourage it, that'd be a punishment.

In a single party of single players campaign with a steep power curve / narrow power band, one might argue that "falling behind" without a chance to "catch up" was a problem for game mechanics. But 5e isn't that. As long as the characters are in the same Tier, they'll be fine unless it's the very top and bottom of Tier 2 (5s and 10s). And until high levels (10+) you can even roll up a new character and still mostly "catch up", because XP isn't linear until Tier 3.

But even in that scenario a lack of a reward isn't a punishment. It's still just a consequence.

If you feel that absent players/characters should still get a share of everything for reasons, bully for you. That's fine. But calling it a punishment is trying to (inaccurately) reframe the argument to make it more emotionally appealing.

[FabulousFizban]

What would your character do?

[Bundin]

What I would argue for, considering you seem to be a rather solid group with 2 games going on in parallel:

Preferred option:
Split the money equally between all characters, including the one of the missing player. Life happens.

What I'd say: steady group, player doesn't dodge games to leech rewards, life happens. Why are we even discussing this?

Alternative if people complain about that player getting "free" loot:
Compensate all characters that spent resources that cost money to replace, effectively bringing the party back to a pre-sessions state
Split the remainder between everyone equally, including the missing player.

If people refuse, I'd give him half of my share, because @#!$ it, he's a friend/party member/...

[da newt]

IMO:

As a Player you ought to at least offer to give them a fair share. This is what friends do. It's important to prioritize what is best for the party / team over selfish rewards - you should not be competing against the other players to win D&D.

As a PC Roll Playing the loot split - play your character, but make it clear where RP and out of character preferences are different.

[quindraco]

So last night we just finished a big quest in Rime of the FrostMaiden. This adventure spanned two gaming sessions and involved us attacking a strong hold, fighting some bosses, and handling a significant encounter afterwards (vague as to avoid spoilers). Having accomplished these tasks, the GM posted the reward the entire party will receive at the beginning of next session. It's not tons (not like Waterdeep money), but it is nice chunk of change. Loot has been sparse so far in this campaign (just made lvl 7 and I don't think any of us has earned over 1000 gp throughout the whole thing - not even close).

One of our players in party of 5 couldn't make the last two sessions. First time he said he was tired and wanted to do some chores and relax after work (we play every other Tuesday night on Roll20). The second time, he was entertaining visiting family.

He GMs our other game on a very consistent basis every other Sunday, and has attended about 70 to 80 percent of our Rime game.

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in? No magic items were found, only money. My character would say "no", but I as a player would shrug and say, "sure, why not?"

I agree with others asking what the character was doing during the two sessions. We can't answer you without knowing more. If the character was brought along as essentially a DMPC, you would have no IC justification for keeping the loot. If the character spent the two sessions whoring around in brothels, the character has no IC justification for asking for the loot. So the question is, what were they doing IC?

[stoutstien]

The more successful groups that I've seen tend to pool the majority of their financial resources to begin with. Material wealth has a pretty sharp drop off to begin with so focusing on the major purchases early is more useful than everybody trying to do it separately. Buying better armor after you're already dead is like trying to charm a snake after it's already bitten.

[KorvinStarmast]

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in? No magic items were found, only money. My character would say "no", but I as a player would shrug and say, "sure, why not?" Why are you asking strangers on line? The only people with an answer to that question is your play group.


Yes. This is a consistent player who plays most of the time, and is there when he reasonably can be. Don't even think about it, include him in the payday.
That's my suggestion as well.

In my group, if you're not there you don't get a share of the loot. However (1) this was all clear up front, and (2) if loot is tied to a certain set of sessions, and you were there for some of them, you still get a share. There ya go; if everyone knows that up front, then the group dynamics bit is already settled and the question doesn't even come up.

[Willie the Duck]

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in?

In general, my response is that this is the kind of thing that should be well-established during session zero, such that everyone understands under what guidelines they are operating and can be prepared for the resultant outcomes. That said, I want to focus specifically upon:


So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in?

Thing is, this adventure clearly has a high value end-reward. On some level, that wasn't 'earned' specifically and exclusively during the last session(s), but throughout the adventure. Metaphorically, everyone who helped facilitate getting the party to Mount Doom participated in earning the reward, even if only Frodo, Gollum and Sam's players were able to show up on the last night. IMO, even disregarding any concerns about not being in-game punitive to IRL constraints, just on a fairness doctrine I'd consider a certain (prorated) amount of the end reward to have been 'earned' by the player in question.

[Toadkiller]

We only get to play if we have other players. That seems worth spending some imaginary money on.

[Porcupinata]

Unless the player specifically says they don't want their share, split it evenly (same goes for xp). There's no need to make them feel bad or fall behind--the penalty for missing a session is that you didn't get to play, not that you lag behind the rest of the group. Anything on top of that is unnecessarily punative for a fun casual hobby.

This, plus the fact that if one character gets less xp and treasure because the player can't always make it then it puts the party at different levels and makes it harder to balance encounters for both the characters who are higher level with more items and the characters who are lower level with less items.

Not only is it fairer to the players, it's also simpler and easier to just share out the treasure and experience between the whole party.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd also note that with a cooperating GM, the absent character could be assumed to go through its own little adventure in parallel of your main quest, gaining XP and other rewards similar to yours.
This is particularly adequate if your GM is the kind to scale the number of enemies depending on the number of players (meaning that if he was in the group, there would have been more enemies, so more XP and potentially more loot to share).

[Sam113097]

I think it's worth taking into account that this player also DMs your other game on alternating weeks, and makes it to 80% of games as a player. I'm in a similar set up (GM one week, player the other week) and honestly, I would feel a little down if I were denied loot because I had real life obligations, especially considering that fact that on the other week, I am putting in work to prepare and run a campaign for (I assume in your case as well) this same group of players.

[Tanarii]

This, plus the fact that if one character gets less xp and treasure because the player can't always make it then it puts the party at different levels and makes it harder to balance encounters for both the characters who are higher level with more items and the characters who are lower level with less items.
It's not significantly harder to balance encounters if they're still in the same Tier. If you want to know the difficulty, you just add up the individual difficulties of the characters involved. If the game were really concerned about a difference of even one level, they would have made the difficulty system differently, and published adventures would require a specific number and level of characters. And AL's drop-in format couldn't easily exist. And as usual specific character abilities vs the specific challenge hold more weight than a level difference of even a few levels.

[Pex]

Week 1
Everyone plays, but no loot

Week 2
Everyone plays, but no loot

Week 3
Everyone plays, but no loot

Week 4
Everyone plays, but no loot

Week 5
Bob can't play. He needs to attend his child's recital. Everyone else plays, kill the BBEG of the adventure arc, and get Phat Lewt!

Bob gets his share.

[Dark.Revenant]

No. They're a reward for participating. Not a punishment for not participating. It's a consequence. There is a difference.

If the DM docked XP or treasure for not participating explicitly in order to discourage it, that'd be a punishment.

In a single party of single players campaign with a steep power curve / narrow power band, one might argue that "falling behind" without a chance to "catch up" was a problem for game mechanics. But 5e isn't that. As long as the characters are in the same Tier, they'll be fine unless it's the very top and bottom of Tier 2 (5s and 10s). And until high levels (10+) you can even roll up a new character and still mostly "catch up", because XP isn't linear until Tier 3.

But even in that scenario a lack of a reward isn't a punishment. It's still just a consequence.

If you feel that absent players/characters should still get a share of everything for reasons, bully for you. That's fine. But calling it a punishment is trying to (inaccurately) reframe the argument to make it more emotionally appealing.

This isn't a matter of punishment, it's a matter of bad blood.

Personally, I would feel patronized if I were offered a reward for missing a session.

Others might feel left out or offended if the reward were withheld after sticking with the group through thick and thin for so long.

That's why the solution here isn't some philosophical debate over the principles of participation rewards. Just ask the player if they want the reward. That's the surest way to make sure the group is good to go for future sessions of D&D.

[ff7hero]

This isn't a matter of punishment, it's a matter of bad blood.

Personally, I would feel patronized if I were offered a reward for missing a session.

Others might feel left out or offended if the reward were withheld after sticking with the group through thick and thin for so long.

That's why the solution here isn't some philosophical debate over the principles of participation rewards. Just ask the player if they want the reward. That's the surest way to make sure the group is good to go for future sessions of D&D.

I would go one step further. Don't ask if they want it, but just offer it to them. It's a small difference, but it would be a significant one to me. As others have said, the absent player helped get the party into a position to earn that reward. They shouldn't have to be put in a position where they're the one deciding everyone else gets less treasure. Better to have everyone else decide to get less treasure and let the absent player decide if they want to accept or not.

[Segev]

It's not patronizing, in my opinion, to say, "Okay, last session, Bob, we got the reward from our quest. Your share is XYZ."

[Elbeyon]

Forget about fair or who 'earned' the imaginary stuff. Who cares about that stuff. Just do whatever is the most fun for people. If people care out of character, it should be handled out of character. Out of character stuff can't be handled in character.

[Ogun]

We only get to play if we have other players. That seems worth spending some imaginary money on.

This.
Also, money hardly matters in terms of a characters abilities in 5e, being as there isn't a market for magic items.
If money did affect character power, shorting one of your team members would be screwing yourself.
Then again, I will spend gladly spend money to upgrade a party member , just so they make for a more effective meat shield, so...

[J-H]

Yes, and has anyone told your DM that ROTFM was built using Adventurer's League guidelines, which assume the party is earning loot by participation? If you're not using those, the DM should be sprinkling substantial extra loot throughout the adventure or you're going to be a poor and ill-equipped party.

[Aimeryan]

Playing the game is the reward; the gold and exp are just progression points. The player missed out on playing - they have already been punished. Just give the exp and gold to keep the progression on track as if they were always there.

That said, if you find this player frequently not playing (and the reasons seem flimsy), perhaps consider that they are not enjoying the game - in which case, it is probably best to let them bow out rather than keep dragging them along.

[Angelalex242]

Are numbers you write on a piece of paper worth losing a friend over?

Think about that for a while.

[Spo]

Thanks for everyone's thoughtful replies. Let me answer some questions that were asked above:

1) We use milestone leveling so he will level with the rest of us.

2) His character just kind of "logged out" during the two sessions. He was with us when we walked up to the door of the fortress and that session ended there. The following two sessions were infiltrating/battling in side/escaping from and encountering the event afterwards. The loot in question comes from the people who hired us to do those things.

3) We are not a band of brothers but more a band of strangers with varying motivations for being there that are really not interconnected to each other. For example: my player is only with the group to earn money to support his her family; another is with the group to get into fights; another to become powerful enough to seek revenge on a goddess; and another is an escaped slave running from their "owners".

4) My CHARACTER would most likely balk at sharing the loot because her families house was recently destroyed (by her very indirect actions and by the very direct actions of another player's character (who has now become an NPC/minor antagonist to my character)). Any money she earns is donated to her family and to help rebuild their village.

[Kvess]

I’ve been at tables where the rogue pockets all of the gold they find while scouting and doesn’t tell their party, because that’s what their character would do. That character’s an amateur. Eventually their party is going to get suspicious when no treasure shows up and that rogue is going to catch the wrong end of a longsword.

A smart rogue skims a little off the top, then offers the party an even split. Be greedy, but don’t be too greedy for your own good. Consider it the cost of doing business and an investment in your allies.

[Tanarii]

This isn't a matter of punishment, it's a matter of bad blood.
Thats fair. But for some folks always call it a punishment when this kind of thread comes up. Usually about XP though

[JonBeowulf]

That's why the solution here isn't some philosophical debate over the principles of participation rewards. Just ask the player if they want the reward. That's the surest way to make sure the group is good to go for future sessions of D&D.

Hey, who let the pragmatist in here? :smallbiggrin:

Sort it out beforehand (players) or ask them what they want after it happens (DM). Even the youngest players should be able to cope with that.

[OldTrees1]

That's fair. But for some folks always call it a punishment when this kind of thread comes up. Usually about XP though

I prefer the lens of:
Real life comes first. Encourage your fellow players to maintain a sane game/life balance.

How that will manifest depends on the playgroup. In some cases, sharing loot/xp with absent players is a good way to encourage sane game/life balance.

Although in other cases, see Dark.Revenant, it could be unwarranted and unwanted.

[chainer1216]

4) My CHARACTER would most likely balk at sharing the loot because her families house was recently destroyed (by her very indirect actions and by the very direct actions of another player's character (who has now become an NPC/minor antagonist to my character)). Any money she earns is donated to her family and to help rebuild their village.

{Scrubbed}

This is the sort of thing that ends gaming groups {Scrubbed}

[Cikomyr2]

I do remember missing a game that was the finale of an adventure at one point. I wasn't allowed the XP for the game (fair) but also was not allowed to get the adventure-completion XP (that one pissed me off).

[Segev]

If he was with you right up to the doors, does it make sense in-narrative that he woudln't have gone in with you? I would just assume, IC, that his character was there with you, or split off to do something vitally important off-screen that was as much a part of enabling the victory as anything done on-screen.

If you do that, then you also automatically assume he was participating and deserves a share of the pay. Especially since the pay was for the whole quest, not just the last two sessions.

[Dr.Samurai]

I’ve been at tables where the rogue pockets all of the gold they find while scouting and doesn’t tell their party, because that’s what their character would do. That character’s an amateur. Eventually their party is going to get suspicious when no treasure shows up and that rogue is going to catch the wrong end of a longsword.

A smart rogue skims a little off the top, then offers the party an even split. Be greedy, but don’t be too greedy for your own good. Consider it the cost of doing business and an investment in your allies.
See, me personally, this grinds my gears more than anything. A player can't make it to the table and we split the loot with them anyway? No problem at all; it wouldn't even occur to me not to split the loot.

But the rogue auto-pilfering everything he finds when he scouts ahead... it bothers me to no end. I don't know why. I think it's more about the cliche than anything else. Like all the players that play rogues feel like they must play their character this way and it entitles them to steal from the other players willy nilly.

[Willie the Duck]

But the rogue auto-pilfering everything he finds when he scouts ahead... it bothers me to no end. I don't know why. I think it's more about the cliche than anything else. Like all the players that play rogues feel like they must play their character this way and it entitles them to steal from the other players willy nilly.

Perhaps it is the idea that some aspect of the game lore (or maybe just cultural zeitgeist) is giving players permission to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't think is acceptable? What are your opinions on the idea that Chaotic Neutral ==> lolrandom?

[Segev]

See, me personally, this grinds my gears more than anything. A player can't make it to the table and we split the loot with them anyway? No problem at all; it wouldn't even occur to me not to split the loot.

But the rogue auto-pilfering everything he finds when he scouts ahead... it bothers me to no end. I don't know why. I think it's more about the cliche than anything else. Like all the players that play rogues feel like they must play their character this way and it entitles them to steal from the other players willy nilly.


Perhaps it is the idea that some aspect of the game lore (or maybe just cultural zeitgeist) is giving players permission to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't think is acceptable? What are your opinions on the idea that Chaotic Neutral ==> lolrandom?

If the rogue is the sort to do this, but it bothers the other players, my suggestion would be that the table work out with the DM that the rogue is skimming "fluff gold" from the top. The "Extra" goes towards some sort of vice, or flaw, or other things that won't have positive impact for the character's power in the game. What qualifies will vary from game to game; one game might have the rogue able to have the finest rooms and the most decadent foods, expensive companionship, and fancy clothes as things that don't matter in the slightest outside of a running gag, while another might see that being a tremendous advantage because it means he's able to participate in social scenes in ways that the others couldn't without spending their actual shares of loot. So in one, that would be fine "skimming off the top" that the other PLAYERS wouldn't be hurt by nor the rogue unfairly advantaged by; in the other, it would give the rogue an unfair advantage that needs recompense, so some other acceptable outlet for his ill-gotten gains would need to be found.

Regardless, this is a way to reconcile IC duplicity with OOC fair play and commaraderie: the "skimmed" gold is an informed attribute that doesn't have impact on actual game-play.

[Mastikator]

Thanks for everyone's thoughtful replies. Let me answer some questions that were asked above:

1) We use milestone leveling so he will level with the rest of us.

2) His character just kind of "logged out" during the two sessions. He was with us when we walked up to the door of the fortress and that session ended there. The following two sessions were infiltrating/battling in side/escaping from and encountering the event afterwards. The loot in question comes from the people who hired us to do those things.

3) We are not a band of brothers but more a band of strangers with varying motivations for being there that are really not interconnected to each other. For example: my player is only with the group to earn money to support his her family; another is with the group to get into fights; another to become powerful enough to seek revenge on a goddess; and another is an escaped slave running from their "owners".

4) My CHARACTER would most likely balk at sharing the loot because her families house was recently destroyed (by her very indirect actions and by the very direct actions of another player's character (who has now become an NPC/minor antagonist to my character)). Any money she earns is donated to her family and to help rebuild their village.

You are the author of what your character would do, you're allowed- nay, encouraged to re-write parts that make them less of a team player. Your band of strangers could become your extended family. This is a roleplay opportunity.

[Pex]

When the rogue scouting ahead encounters random orc #4, deals with him, ruffles through his pockets and takes the 2d4 silver pieces for himself, I won't quibble that.

When the party is searching rooms after defeating all the orcs and the rogue is alone in room #3 finds the chest, disarms the trap, finds 4 gems and 500 gp, keeps one gem and 100 gp for himself and tells the party "Hey guys! I found a chest with three gems and about 400 gp", screw him. I will not play with him. I don't want him in the group. If I have to leave because the DM won't back me up, so be it.

[Segev]

When the rogue scouting ahead encounters random orc #4, deals with him, ruffles through his pockets and takes the 2d4 silver pieces for himself, I won't quibble that.

When the party is searching rooms after defeating all the orcs and the rogue is alone in room #3 finds the chest, disarms the trap, finds 4 gems and 500 gp, keeps one gem and 100 gp for himself and tells the party "Hey guys! I found a chest with three gems and about 400 gp", screw him. I will not play with him. I don't want him in the group. If I have to leave because the DM won't back me up, so be it.

Would you have this problem if the one gem and 100 gp were agreed OOC to be "fluff," and were (a) put there on top of the amount the DM would normally hand out specifically for the rogue to IC skim, and (b) the rogue will only use it for fluff things like having a "stash" he may reference from time to time, or on things that don't impact gameplay (e.g. a nicer room at the inn than normal, in a game where social status really isn't important)?

The idea here being that the table discussed how to accommodate this character quirk in the rogue without harming anybody's mechanical play experience.

[chainer1216]

Would you have this problem if the one gem and 100 gp were agreed OOC to be "fluff," and were (a) put there on top of the amount the DM would normally hand out specifically for the rogue to IC skim, and (b) the rogue will only use it for fluff things like having a "stash" he may reference from time to time, or on things that don't impact gameplay (e.g. a nicer room at the inn than normal, in a game where social status really isn't important)?

The idea here being that the table discussed how to accommodate this character quirk in the rogue without harming anybody's mechanical play experience.

{Scrubbed}

[Zanos]

Was his character absent as well? Then definitely no share. Just like XP.

A lack of a reward is not a punishment.

Although unlike XP, if the PC party has a formal (in-game) organization with a charter, the PC may not need to show up to get a reward. Depends what the charter spells out.
This is how I've run it. If your character doesn't face any risk, they don't get any rewards. Now if there's a task that gives 10,000 gold upon completion, and the character was present for 4/5 sessions where the party worked towards completing that task, they would still get something, because they did face almost as much risk as the rest of the party.

This is a hard topic though, because obviously in character, it would depend on why the PC wasn't available. If you're a group of good friends IC, it'd be strange for one of the characters to just abandon the others in the thick of it. If you're more of a mercenary band, you probably wouldn't want to work with someone who disappeared when things got tough anymore. For those reasons I usually prefer to just postpone the game if someone isn't available so folks don't miss out.

[micahaphone]

They're a member of the party, right? So things that benefit them also benefit the party, because you work together? Promote teamwork and party cohesiveness.


It's like how I don't have children, yet I'm still happy that some of my tax money goes to local schools. In this very rough analogy, my community is my party, and kids are the temporarily AFK player.

[Tanarii]

Would you have this problem if the one gem and 100 gp were agreed OOC to be "fluff," and were (a) put there on top of the amount the DM would normally hand out specifically for the rogue to IC skim, and (b) the rogue will only use it for fluff things like having a "stash" he may reference from time to time, or on things that don't impact gameplay (e.g. a nicer room at the inn than normal, in a game where social status really isn't important)?

The idea here being that the table discussed how to accommodate this character quirk in the rogue without harming anybody's mechanical play experience.In that case, it would probably be better if the skimmed gold was invisible & assumed. In other words, all the players know it's happening. But you don't bother "handing it out" in the first place.

[Segev]

In that case, it would probably be better if the skimmed gold was invisible & assumed. In other words, all the players know it's happening. But you don't bother "handing it out" in the first place.

Something like, "After Rob the Rogue takes his standard skim, what he reports to you is...?"

[Tanarii]

Something like, "After Rob the Rogue takes his standard skim, what he reports to you is...?"
Yup, that's what I'm thinking.

[Pex]

Would you have this problem if the one gem and 100 gp were agreed OOC to be "fluff," and were (a) put there on top of the amount the DM would normally hand out specifically for the rogue to IC skim, and (b) the rogue will only use it for fluff things like having a "stash" he may reference from time to time, or on things that don't impact gameplay (e.g. a nicer room at the inn than normal, in a game where social status really isn't important)?

The idea here being that the table discussed how to accommodate this character quirk in the rogue without harming anybody's mechanical play experience.

The problem is made worse because the DM is not only enabling the poor behavior but encouraging it. The rogue player should not be doing it at all.

I was trying out a Pathfinder Society game. A rogue player was doing just this, hiding found party treasure for herself literally right after the party saved her life from an attack of zombies. It wouldn't have affected anything. In Pathfinder Society you always get a defined treasure amount for completing the adventure. All treasure found in the game is flavor text. I didn't care. I absolutely refuse to play with such people, and I called out the player on this. Next game session the DM scolded me, telling me we were all getting a treasure share anyway. That told me the DM was allowing this behavior. That was my last game.

It's not about the treasure itself.


'

[Captain Panda]

It's a common dilemma. Really it just depends on the group dynamic. In a West March I run, you get treasure you're there for unless you have something in-character worked out or it's a special instance. In a standard, set group? You should probably let him have his xp and loot.

I disagree that "lack of reward is not a punishment" in the context of a standard group; though I agree with it pretty strongly in a West March.

[Mastikator]

The problem is made worse because the DM is not only enabling the poor behavior but encouraging it. The rogue player should not be doing it at all.

I was trying out a Pathfinder Society game. A rogue player was doing just this, hiding found party treasure for herself literally right after the party saved her life from an attack of zombies. It wouldn't have affected anything. In Pathfinder Society you always get a defined treasure amount for completing the adventure. All treasure found in the game is flavor text. I didn't care. I absolutely refuse to play with such people, and I called out the player on this. Next game session the DM scolded me, telling me we were all getting a treasure share anyway. That told me the DM was allowing this behavior. That was my last game.

It's not about the treasure itself.


'

I 100% agree. This rogue was passive aggressive PVPing the rest of the party. PVP should always be talked about at game zero and if someone does what this rogue did that makes them the enemy.

Though I do think that it's up to the players if they're OK with pvping, not the DM. The DM runs the world and the NPCs, the DM does not run the party. The DM's only job as far as the party is concerned IMO is to mediate disputes. I've seen players who act like this so I do believe you, the rogue and the DM were both scum

[Segev]

The problem is made worse because the DM is not only enabling the poor behavior but encouraging it. The rogue player should not be doing it at all.

I was trying out a Pathfinder Society game. A rogue player was doing just this, hiding found party treasure for herself literally right after the party saved her life from an attack of zombies. It wouldn't have affected anything. In Pathfinder Society you always get a defined treasure amount for completing the adventure. All treasure found in the game is flavor text. I didn't care. I absolutely refuse to play with such people, and I called out the player on this. Next game session the DM scolded me, telling me we were all getting a treasure share anyway. That told me the DM was allowing this behavior. That was my last game.

It's not about the treasure itself.


'

Sounds like a personal hang-up, to me. This isn't a criticism, mind. But if a player wants to play a selfish, greedy, dishonest rogue, but wants to be a team player in a meta-game sense, I don't inherently see a problem with it as long as he doesn't screw the party over in a real sense.

Your CHARACTER being upset if he finds out about the rogue's skimming/stealing from the party is perfectly reasonable, of course, but the PC and the player are not the same person.

[DwarfFighter]

So my question is, should he get an equal share of the loot we earned from the sessions he didn't participate in? No magic items were found, only money. My character would say "no", but I as a player would shrug and say, "sure, why not?"

As you said, loot has been scarce up until this point. I am sure your fellow players have all contributed in their way to get you this far, and sharing the rewards is only fair. The party benefits from the contributions of all, not the excellence of any individual. Advancing as a group is both better for party cohesion and for balancing the party against the challenges of the campaign.

Share the loot.

-DF

[Tanarii]

I disagree that "lack of reward is not a punishment" in the context of a standard group; though I agree with it pretty strongly in a West March.The only context that changes it to a punishment is intentional infliction of a negative for the explicit intent of retribution or discouragement.

Thats not the context.

[Zanos]

Your CHARACTER being upset if he finds out about the rogue's skimming/stealing from the party is perfectly reasonable, of course, but the PC and the player are not the same person.
I feel like the vast majority of player characters are not going to tolerate working closely with someone that consistently steals right out from under them. That's a murderin' in most circumstances, and someone roleplaying that character is either asking to die(which isn't allowed in PFS) or be excluded(which isn't allowed in PFS). So a PFS DM enabling that is basically preventing other people from roleplaying a rational response to working with someone who is completely disagreeable.

PFS allows disallows Evil characters, and stealing from other people due to your own 'quirky' greed is Evil; so yeah. I'm comfortable saying that's a pretty terrible PFS DM.

[Elbeyon]

The only context that changes it to a punishment is intentional infliction of a negative for the explicit intent of retribution or discouragement.

Thats not the context.In the games I play everyone getting a share is the standard. So, excluding someone from xp and gold would be an explicit retribution/discouragement.

[Dr.Samurai]

Perhaps it is the idea that some aspect of the game lore (or maybe just cultural zeitgeist) is giving players permission to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't think is acceptable?
The more I think on it, and after seeing Segev's and Tanarii's thoughts on it, I think it's that this single player is deciding for themselves how loot will be divided. The suggestion that Segev and Tanarii gave seems to me to be the right of it; discuss it beforehand and make it a nonissue explicitly.

Because I think the issue I have is that I don't really care if the rogue takes a few gold here or there, but we, as the other players, are intrinsically not a part of the process if the rogue is skimming off the top in secret. And it becomes an issue when the rogue takes something that others think is too valuable. It can't be resolved in game because the other characters don't know. But the players do, and so it either has to be let go, or addressed. So might as well address it from the very beginning.

So I guess it's just the liberty that a player is taking upon themselves to start roleplaying this greedy sneak without advising anyone, as if we all take it for granted that this player, by virtue of playing a rogue, gets to decide party split from here on out. I like Segev's suggestion.

What are your opinions on the idea that Chaotic Neutral ==> lolrandom?
Super annoying. But I probably take the roleplaying more seriously than it needs to be. I just feel like... the way a lot of characters act in game, they would probably get punched in the face. A lot. So it grates on me when people are acting in a way that I feel breaks the immersion. I mean, not a lot. Like, I play with my friends and we all have a great time (Descent to Avernus in 3 minutes in fact). But if you're asking me and I'm typing into the aether, it bugs me lol.

[Pex]

Sounds like a personal hang-up, to me. This isn't a criticism, mind. But if a player wants to play a selfish, greedy, dishonest rogue, but wants to be a team player in a meta-game sense, I don't inherently see a problem with it as long as he doesn't screw the party over in a real sense.

Your CHARACTER being upset if he finds out about the rogue's skimming/stealing from the party is perfectly reasonable, of course, but the PC and the player are not the same person.

We've been over this in another thread. I don't care if my character doesn't know. I know, and I don't care if it's metagaming. I WILL NOT play with such people. End of story.

[Tanarii]

In the games I play everyone getting a share is the standard. So, excluding someone from xp and gold would be an explicit retribution/discouragement.
Thats not how punishment works. You giving everyone a share no matter what is the explicit intention. Only getting stuff out of a game when you're part of the game is the default situation.

Otherwise I can claim my character gets a share because you guys had a session today.


We've been over this in another thread. I don't care if my character doesn't know. I know, and I don't care if it's metagaming. I WILL NOT play with such people. End of story.
This doesn't have to be about another person though. It can be about finding a way to allow a PC party to exist, in theory, where one of the characters is a thieving rogue, without it being about players in any way. To allow such characters to exist in the concept space of fantasy parties you can create as a team to play the game. Same thing could be done for example to allow an evil character to exist in a party of heroes.

However, my personal opinion is that doing it to allow a single player to choose to bring such a character to the table wouldn't work, that's not a meaningful distinction between the kind of player and the character, it's still the kind of player that wants to play that kind of character.

I'm thinking of a group of players bandying about character concepts together and agreeing on them in a session, would be the only way it can sufficiently meaningful difference. I don't run those kind of games, and I expect you don't play in them, so your categorical insistence on it makes plenty of sense. But there are people that do that kind of thing.

e.g.
"Hey guys, what if we had an evil backstabbing Drow assassin who had been ensorcelled to be good, and his only way he still expresses his former alignment is petty thievery? Could we make that work?"
"I'll play that character, but only if we (insert idea under discussion). And maybe when I get caught by the other PCs we do a storyline about how I regain their trust."

[Elbeyon]

Thats not how punishment works. You giving everyone a share no matter what is the explicit intention. Only getting stuff out of a game when you're part of the game is the default situation.

Otherwise I can claim my character gets a share because you guys had a session today.I very much disagree. The norm is everyone gets loot and xp. Do people not normally get xp and loot in your games?

You're welcome to it! Guess what? When you show up you'll have the same xp and money as everyone else! You're not starting at level 1 with no cash.

[Witty Username]

My current game uses a party fund partially to avoid this problem, they fund things according to party agreement. So far the only problem is when a player is trying to claim priority, then being a no show can be a feel bad.
As a side note, I decided to try out XP for Gold. This has led to a couple problems: one with a sudden disappearance of a character, player quit immediately after they invested gold into leveling his character (I just refunded them, I think they decided to level a different character) and one player who has regularly missed sessions, so the party doesn't invest in them because they aren't as reliable. But on the whole it has worked out.
I personally wouldn't punish people because of scheduling nonsense, as long as its not a pattern of behavior. And they do there bit when they are there.

[Tanarii]

I very much disagree. The norm is everyone gets loot and xp. Do people not normally get xp and loot in your games?

You're welcome to it! Guess what? When you show up you'll have the same xp and money as everyone else! You're not starting at level 1 with no cash.Again, that's an explicit intention adding something on you guys part.

[Elbeyon]

Again, that's an explicit intention adding something on you guys part.That's a standard part of the game. Not getting stuff is weird. Do you not normally get stuff?

[Tanarii]

That's a standard part of the game. Not getting stuff is weird. Do you not normally get stuff?
If you sit down at a table to play a game, it's standard to get an opportunity to get some stuff. And if you don't, you don't. Like I said, I (and the entire rest of the world) don't get stuff when not sitting down at your table.

You're adding that people that don't sit at your table still get stuff, under X circumstances.

Edit: I agree that if you guys have a standing rule that people get stuff who arent at your table, then you change the rule in one case to make someone start showing up more, you guys are then punishing

[GloatingSwine]

That's a standard part of the game. Not getting stuff is weird. Do you not normally get stuff?

Tanarii thinks that D&D is your minimum wage job for a crappy employer and you better damn well show up if you wanna get paid. No sick days and no holidays dammit.

[Amnestic]

My characters only join adventuring parties that have paid sick days or other emergency absence allocation, letting us lift each other up even during difficult times.

[DwarfFighter]

The problem is made worse because the DM is not only enabling the poor behavior but encouraging it. The rogue player should not be doing it at all.

I was trying out a Pathfinder Society game. A rogue player was doing just this, hiding found party treasure for herself literally right after the party saved her life from an attack of zombies. It wouldn't have affected anything. In Pathfinder Society you always get a defined treasure amount for completing the adventure. All treasure found in the game is flavor text. I didn't care. I absolutely refuse to play with such people, and I called out the player on this.

I was with you until this part, agreeing with sharing the loot fairly. I even support your stance on ditching games where the other players are screwing each other over. But this I don't get. This is literally harmless RP. The only reason I can think of that justifies getting riled up over this is if the other player was doing this out of malice, believing that that skimming the top would benefit their character and hurt the others.

This isn't you getting cheated, it's you telling another player how to play their character in a situation where you, out of character, have no standing.



Next game session the DM scolded me, telling me we were all getting a treasure share anyway. That told me the DM was allowing this behavior. That was my last game.

Sounds to me like that was a win-win for both you and the GM.

-DF

[GloatingSwine]

It's a classic example of the "can't pretend you don't know what you know" issue.

Pex knows that his character is being cheated (within the diagesis of the game being played, even if not in the adiagesis of the rules).

That makes it very hard to play the character as if they don't know that. Especially so if you get very into playing the character and identifying with their viewpoint, because then the separation disappears. It's not your character being cheated, it is you.

It's the sort of thing that can basically never end well, it will absolutely distort the flow of the game whilst characters who cannot avoid knowing things they don't know look for excuses to know it, and then act on that knowledge.

This is why it is important to remind anyone who plays a Rogue that all the people they know are heavily armed professional murderers and even rogues have to sleep sometimes.

[DwarfFighter]

I'm not familiar with Pathfinder Community, so I'm basing this solely on Pex' description of how loot works: "All treasure found in the game is flavor text."

So the tort is of the out-of-character knowledge that the thief is cheating the party, but at the same time there is the out-of-game knowledge that it doesn't matter: The cheating causes no injury. If you cannot ignore the meta of knowing about the cheating, how can you ignore the meta-knowledge that "All treasure found in the game is flavor text"?

To me, this comes off as being unnecessarily inflexible: Other players want to have their fun too, and this thing about "All treasure found in the game is flavor text" makes these shenanigans harmless where in other circumstances they would be disruptive.

-DF

[Trafalgar]

He GMs our other game on a very consistent basis every other Sunday, and has attended about 70 to 80 percent of our Rime game.


Because of this, I would say yes. Life happens but he is an active participant. Unless your PC has a very specific reason (100gp more and I can afford a Wand of Fire!) I would let it go.

[Pex]

As I said, it's not about the treasure. It's about trust. If I can't trust you I don't want to play with you. You can play your way, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it. I've said it many times. I'm absolutely fine if we're mutually happy we don't play together. I'm done with these types of players. I do not apologize. In this case I was the odd man out, so I left. No regrets. In other games That Guy was the odd man out, so she left and I got to enjoy a wonderful campaign. In a couple of cases That Guy changed his behavior when he learned it wasn't accepted at the table and we played on.

[Witty Username]

Social contracts are important.

[Segev]

We've been over this in another thread. I don't care if my character doesn't know. I know, and I don't care if it's metagaming. I WILL NOT play with such people. End of story.

Not trying to argue with you, just make sure I understand your position. You (the player) do not wish to play in a game where a (fictional) character behaves this way, even if the player of that character is taking pains to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact the party in any mechanics-level way, and isn't backstabbing anybody on the mechanical level. Is that right?

[Gurgeh]

So the tort is of the out-of-character knowledge that the thief is cheating the party, but at the same time there is the out-of-game knowledge that it doesn't matter: The cheating causes no injury. If you cannot ignore the meta of knowing about the cheating, how can you ignore the meta-knowledge that "All treasure found in the game is flavor text"?
It does seem problematic if one character is allowed to cheat and steal from their companions without said companions having any way to make them suffer consequences for it.

[Mastikator]

If you sit down at a table to play a game, it's standard to get an opportunity to get some stuff. And if you don't, you don't. Like I said, I (and the entire rest of the world) don't get stuff when not sitting down at your table.

You're adding that people that don't sit at your table still get stuff, under X circumstances.

Edit: I agree that if you guys have a standing rule that people get stuff who arent at your table, then you change the rule in one case to make someone start showing up more, you guys are then punishing

TBH if someone joined an ongoing group at level 10, the other players have rare magic items. And the new player gets starting equipment only that would be weird. Not only is it jarring from a story perspective but it's also unwelcoming and unnecessary. It's an unnecessary evil. Why wouldn't it be the standard to do the right thing that also costs nothing?

[Arkhios]

I think it's a bit complicated, but assuming an absent player's character simply doesn't vanish somewhere whenever the player isn't present, there's really no reason to exclude the character from sharing loot, because the character is still around, even if the player isn't.

However, if it is ruled that an absent player's character disappears in-game whenever the player is unable to attend, for some reason, it might be reasonable (though, to be honest, far from fair) to only reward them for when they were present.

[Jerrykhor]

Just wanna add, not getting loot just because you are not around feels like the mentality of those MMO raiders ala WoW. Getting loot was a very competitive thing, whether its pure luck rolls or DKP or whatever system.

Don't do that, its stupid and D&D is not a video game.

[Izodonia]

My $0.02? The absent player should get an equal share of the cash, but the people who showed up should have first pick of the magic items.

[DwarfFighter]

It does seem problematic if one character is allowed to cheat and steal from their companions without said companions having any way to make them suffer consequences for it.

Well, it's an in-game misbehavior that deserves in-game repercussions.

I would expect the players to act in character if they discovered the PC was cheating them. The meta rule that the priceless gem the thief was hiding has no bearing on the adventure rewards shouldn't protect the cheat from the other PCs anger.

But I do expect the players to distinguish between in-and out-of-game knowledge, actions and motivation.

[Tanarii]

But I do expect the players to distinguish between in-and out-of-game knowledge, actions and motivation.
Easier said that done. It's not natural.

[GloatingSwine]

Not trying to argue with you, just make sure I understand your position. You (the player) do not wish to play in a game where a (fictional) character behaves this way, even if the player of that character is taking pains to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact the party in any mechanics-level way, and isn't backstabbing anybody on the mechanical level. Is that right?

"We've figured out what you are, now we're just haggling over the price..."

Ultimately this is a case of a player very strongly inhabiting their character's point of view, and there's always the nagging feeling that this other character-player gestalt at the table cannot be trusted.

The player has demonstrated that they like the feeling of getting one over on the rest of the group, even if this time it doesn't have a mechanical effect, will that hold true forever?


But I do expect the players to distinguish between in-and out-of-game knowledge, actions and motivation.

Sounds good, doesn't work. Almost nobody can actually compartmentalise that well.

[Sigreid]

I guess you could boil it down to how does the rest of the group want to be treated if next time real life stops them from being there for the big payday?

[Pex]

"We've figured out what you are, now we're just haggling over the price..."

Ultimately this is a case of a player very strongly inhabiting their character's point of view, and there's always the nagging feeling that this other character-player gestalt at the table cannot be trusted.

Not how I would describe it, but I'll accept the interpretation.


The player has demonstrated that they like the feeling of getting one over on the rest of the group, even if this time it doesn't have a mechanical effect, will that hold true forever?

Exactly. The player is not a team player, and it never ends at the stealing. Never. This player will be the first to run away in a combat. I'm not talking about the party realizes they should retreat, which is fine. The player will run away when the party as a whole is doing alright, but he's near 0 hit points. Not back up to heal and get back in the fight. Not back up so a party member can heal him and get back in the fight. Run away from the combat completely.

When the party comes up with a plan, this player will not do what he's supposed to do. He will do his own thing that makes the situation worse for everyone else. It takes everyone at the table to yell at him to do the Thing for him to do it, but he will resent it.

He will Finders Keepers the magic item that was obviously meant for someone else, even when his character can't use it.

If he is a spellcaster he will cast area effect spells that include party members, on purpose.

If he has healing capabilities he will use it on himself first and everyone else maybe, but only after he's at full health and he as any left. He will be smug about healing you.

It's never about the treasure itself. It's not even about the Rogue class. It's the player personality type. It's That Guy - the one who plays against or despite the party,

[Waterdeep Merch]

I solved this headache a few years ago when I was in a party that was having trouble by drafting a charter that we all agreed to. Even had everyone sign it. We opted to split monetary treasure evenly, but magic items were to be decided democratically amongst the party present; you might still get the +longsword even if you didn't attend, but it's not your decision to make.

Now when I DM, I make my sure players decide on a charter like that at the end of Session Zero. Rules that everyone has to follow governing PvP, treasure splitting, stealing, even jeopardizing the party or harming beloved NPC's, along with anything else the players think is important. The charter can be altered later, but must be done democratically. As DM, I do nothing more than facilitate and enforce this charter, though twice I was also given the executive ability to break ties, which I've never had to exercise. Theoretically I could also let them come up with rules for me as DM with the understanding that if it gets too annoying I'll walk. Might try that soon, really dig into the whole constitutional monarchy system.