So I've got a rogue who is actively working against everyone else. I've given him a lot of leeway but his latest move was to attempt to steal gold from another player while he slept. I allowed it by making him perform a sleight of hand check against the victim's wisdom saving throw and they both rolled the same.
I ruled that the sleight of hand was unsuccessful and the rest of the group elected to boot him, though he's still hanging around them (hiding).
I'm not sure if my ruling was correct, do you guys have any ideas on how to deal with the rogue or on my ruling?
Ask the other players first. Is it fun for them to have this guy hanging around who might steal from them? If the rogue's player is trolling, there's no need to humor his behavior. Ignore what ruling you think applies in-universe, just stop the game and say "hey, the group isn't okay with this."
Well, to start, a lot of us run a solid Session Zero in which we discuss our goals and set precedent for what kind of game we want this to be.
The next thing is - how does everyone else react? The characters booted him, sure, but do the players object? I mean, is this part of the in-game stuff or do you have a conflict between people?
If it's between people, you'll have to talk it out and get on the same page.
If it's just this character, you've got a defective adventurer on your hands. Personally, I don't allow that in my games. Characters who are loners, mercenaries, or who won't go on adventures. Characters who sabotage their own group (and that's not part of our expected play). Characters who are so cautious they never act. These are defective adventurers. I take their character sheets and tell the player to try again.
Now I don't know who you or your players are, but if you cannot manage to talk things out, or if you cannot train your players to quit **** around, then you may have to reconsider your group. But idk. I'd first do the session zero, set expectations, and remove defective adventurers.
Extremely germane to this topic:
**** that guy. No-one likes that guy. (...) If you steal from other players, you are exerting power over them in a really messy, underhanded sort of way. If they find out, what are they going to do? Are you going to force them to escalate? Is it fair if they kill you for it? Is that fun for them?
Can we avoid the "We never talked about whether you could do what you did, but it's ****!" talk?
Harrisben, I'd advise saying this "I didn't get this decided before we started play, but do you guys want into PC theft to be allowed in game? Raise your hand if you want it to be a valid move to make in game and we'll go by majority"
If the majority doesn't want it, say "I didn't get this clear at the start, but sorry, inter PC theft isn't a valid option now"
Then figure if you'll retcon the action so he was never booted from the party or not.
You don't 'train them out of it' - you don't give the mixed message of saying it's possible to do in the game, but hitting them over the head with a rolled up newspaper (so to speak) until they don't do it - that's pretty messed up.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
A summary of what many folks mean when they say "training players":
Event: Player does thing that DM/group wants to support and include in their ongoing play
Reaction: DM and/or other players provide reward to the player - usually no more or less than saying "That's cool!" or "thank you."
Event: Player does thing that the DM/group wants to discourage or disinclude in their ongoing play
Reaction: DM and/or other players provide disincentive - usually no more or less than saying "Please don't do that anymore."
At least that is what I am talking about when I use the phrase - not some kind of "beat it out of them" nonsense.
Llenlleawg wrote:
Noon wrote:
Thanks for the link. Personally I've adopted the solution that when events like these happen, the target player decides if the event succeeds, fails or if there's a roll of the dice. However, if the rogue player is being disruptive talk to the player, don't resolve these issues in game. Have a group talk about why the actions of the player aren't compatible. Saying "that's what my character would do!" as an excuse for the player making the decision that his character does something nefarious should never be ok. He's making the decisions.
What I would do is:
Start of the next session, appologize to the group for sending mixed messages. Talk to them and explain that the actions by the rogue player have caused a bit of a rift in the group which needs to be fixed. That you didn't want to have this rift happen but it did. So now we're going to fix it. Ask your players if they want it to be ok to steal from each other, kill each other and that sort of thing. Get it out in the open and talk to them like adults. Odds are they don't want to get their gold stolen by one player. Once you have the solution, undo the booting from the party. Undo any theft that was previously done. Start fresh. Have the rogue back in the party and move on. Now everyone is on the same page, you've removed the behaviour you and probably others didn't enjoy and the party is back together as a TEAM. And that's what this is all about, TEAMWORK and cooperative story telling. Not screwing over each other whenever possible.
However if on the other hand the party says that they want that sort of thing, I would say implement the system I described above. Let the target decide what happens. That way the target and the thief can work together to make the event more interesting. It's not just roll the dice and steal from a player. It's cooperative and a lot more interesting.
Noon wrote:
My advice: come down hard. You're the DM. Take command.
Address the players at the beginning of the next session. Tell them that you aren't going to let the party fragment because you don't want to have to track two separate adventure threads and you don't want to have to deal with the fall-out from inter-party conflicts. So you want one team, one side and everybody on-side, okay?
Tell the Rogue Player that there's no part in the next episode for his rogue character; you've written him out of the story and his place in the party has been taken by an NPC rogue. Tell him there's a part for a paladin if he wants it. Does he want in? Yes? Hand him a pregen paladin sheet. Present him with the choice, Take it or leave it. Play or not play
No more Mr. Nice Guy,
BoldItalic wrote:
That really depends on the group, doesn't it?
bawylie wrote:
Admiteddly, BI's way is a bit harsh, but we have no idea the exact context. We have some clues, yeah. And maybe BI's group would cheer him on if he said that to a player. But others might become aghast and apalled, as if to say "I'm...I'm sorry I had no idea I was ruining everyone's fun!" because I've found a lot of times, they DON'T realize they're bumming everyone out. Yes, it's a simple concept to see that if you focus all about yourself, you're excluding others, but sometimes we just don't notice until someone points it out. A lot of us are hardwired to sorta pass this over due to how we were raised in certain gaming environments. For example, I had to let my PCs know that they can't just raid the cupboards of a person's home while they're still there...this isn't Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda! Well, I mean, it COULD be, but that is not how I chose to run the games.
For all we know, though, the DM might be the only person with the problem, and everyone else thinks it's funny. That doesn't mean he shouldn't address it, but he should still find out what the others think before doing something drastic...
All-in-all, OP, talk to the player FIRST preferably alone. DON'T call them out midgame, or simply try to doll out punishments in game to "teach them a lesson *hue hue*" That can lead to hurt feelings and embarassment. I'd honestly ask him, "What, exactly, is your end-game here?" I mean, silly little lies are fine, and realizing that you're taking a BIG risk by stealing from your party members is okay, too. But why sneak around and follow the party who hates you, and will likely knock you unconcious when they find you (not if, WHEN!). Is your character hoping for treasure? Does he feel slighted and wants revenge? Maybe it's time for that PC to become an adversary (not necessarily a villain!) to the group, but in the form of an NPC. But maybe the player just feels obligated to stick close to the party at this point, because, well, they, themselves, are unsure what else to do. They likely don't have a new character all drawn up, so it's easiest just to go into "auto-pilot" and then just hope things pan out and he can still play (and have fun!)
Run that idea by him, and see if they'll either shape up and play as the rogue (he doesn't have to apologize IC, that might be too embarassing! Just talk to the other players OOC), or the rogue will become an NPC and the trouble player brings in a new, less...destructive...character.
Noctaem wrote:
Considering that they've already RP'd the attempt and the kicking out and his character is still hanging around.
I'd discuss with the group how they want to handle it, encourage the offending player to promise he won't the other players he won't do such a thing anymore if need be (to assuage distrust amongst the players) all agree on an inter-player code of conduct for going forward. If everything works out, let his character apologise and beg his way back into the group. That is, allow everything to continue on from this point to a better place without erasing the history in game that's been created. The players won't forget, why have their characters? Besides, it CAN be turned into good moments for RP, depending on the group make up.
But overall, make an agreement on the code of conduct that everyone can live with going forward.
I think the word "group" is extremely important here. This is a group activity. There are no winners or losers at this table, just a bunch of people weanting to have fun. I believe if you sit at the table playing a RPG then you should accept resposibility for everyone's fun, as well as your own. A player who has the goal "I have fun and I don't care one way or another about other people's fun" is in the wrong game.
As a player, having another player's character steal stuff from my character is not fun. It is a game-breaker for me. As a GM, I have told my players that if any of them want to do this then they must first get permission from every other player at the table.
Noctaem wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
harrisben wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Storygames. It could be that this player is bored with the plot driven nature of D&D, and RPGs in general, and wants a more character interactive game and may not know about the existence of Storygames. Apocolypes World and Monsterhearts might be a good direction to point him towards.
Or he could just be trolling.
Noon wrote:
When D&D has a rule in it forbiding any sort of PVP, I'll agree with you.
Otherwise either A: Your 'normal play' is more of your preference (making both sets of [1][2][3] identical) or B: The designers don't want PVP in their game, but kinda forgot to put in a rule that stops it*.
In short, someone who doesn't get everything he wants hasn't lost. Not getting everything you want is not losing.
I'm with Noon, here. A lot of people on this board would be aghast at the stories, shenanigans, and various "things" that I "allow" to happen at my table. But we're all close friends, and mature adults, so we handle it well! Not everyone is lucky to have a group like mine, and I realize that every time I go to DnD boards 
Anyway, hashtag #HumbleBrag aside, some people/groups LIKE doing silly sneaky things. But it's important to set group standards, ideally coming to a compromise, or the root of WHY they want to do things. A compromise might be "Sure, you can steal, but gold only" or "You can steal, but only from NPCs." There are probably better examples but you get the idea :-p Another key element is figuring out WHY the PC wants to use "disruptive" behavior. Are they bored with the storyline and are basically looking for trouble as something to do? Keep them entertained! Do they like the thief archetype, but the only people around his party members? Throw the thief a bone every now and then! It's just the DMs way of trying to spread the fun and the spotlight for everyone else! It's just that this time, it involves someone who enjoys scrupulous behavior!
But hey, in the end, it could be that he does it "for the lulz" and in that case, yeah, telling him to knock it off because he's bumming everyone out might be a fine option.
Timborama wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
menakles wrote:
Yeah, but the whole argument is about consensus versus majority rules. A game where everyone agrees PvP is allowed has formed a consensus, so it's not a counterpoint to the pro-consensus side, it's a point in its favor.
A group that voted and found that 3 out of 5 players want PvP and 2 out of 5 don't would be wrong to force PvP on the 2 that don't without first seeking their permission (i.e. forming a consensus). Likewise a group where 3 out of 5 didn't want PvP would be wrong to ban PvP without at least consulting with the 2 that want it and trying to find of there's an acceptable middle ground between free-for-all and no PvP at all. In either such discussion it is possible for either or both sides to compromise, or for the group to decide their interests are incompatible and not to play together. This is exactly what session 0 is - an attempt to form a consensus. Voting and saying that who ever doesn't want to go with the Majority's decision can hit the road is not a good session 0, and it is not a good way to make decisions in a small group.
True compromise is moderately dissatisfying - both sides giving up or giving in to some degree. But the idea is that a part of what you want is better than none of what you want. So while I'll cut a defective adventurer, I've only "fired" one DM and one player. Ever.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
menakles wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
Noon, here's the thing. First, the boxing analogy was not mine. I simply used it to show how silly the idea that both parties have equal responsibility is.
Moreover, I am not comparing two fictional realities, but two real-life ones. The player of the PC who is having things taken from him (or whatever the other PC is doing) is having his one way of interacting with the world interfered with by the decisions of another player, right there at the table (or virtually there, in any event). So, the real-life question is this, "Why does the player [not the thief PC] choose to have his fun by interfering with another PC, which is to say, with the one means another player has to play the game?" This isn't about character death or eggshells. Silly references to Dark Dungeons are out of place and distracting. Players at least should, and the rules remind them that they should, be prepared to have the challenges put before them be quite possibly, and in some cases actually lethal to their characters. That's part of the game. That's very different from a player who's not the DM choosing to act in a way that impairs the PC of another player.
Honestly, I simply don't see (and am not sure I believe) you do not see the difference. Are there players out there who are honestly surprised when other players are upset that their PCs are messed with by other PCs? Did they honestly have no idea that the player might quite likely find this annoying? Do they truly imagine that, apart from an explicit rule disallowing it, they don't have to show common courtesy to the actual, live people playing the game with them at the table? Really?
Please note that this is altogether different from a situation when everyone is knowingly and explicitly on board with this sort of thing.
What I've being trying to say is (a) no player should presume his PC can act this way and (b) it is sufficiently annoying to other players (who mostly only have that one PC with which to play) that there is a perfectly justifiably preference to the wishes of a player not to have his PC interfered with by fellow PCs over the wishes of those who want such a thing. The player with the thief has full control over what his PC wants to do and to whom, so there's no harm or loss at all to the player to choose to steal from someone else (e.g. an NPC), while for the player whose PC is being stolen from does have the capacity to interact in the game diminished (and so possibly his fun diminished) when his PC is deprived of the means to engage the fictional world.
CR, the situation we're considering is a real-life situation. We don't need fanciful equivalents. The issue at hand is a player who is playing in such a way as to make it harder for another player to play, and the rest of the players (DM included) seem to agree. So, my questions still stand, and I'll pose them again to you: Are there players out there who are honestly surprised when other players are upset that their PCs are messed with by other PCs? Did they honestly have no idea that the player might quite likely find this annoying? Do they truly imagine that, apart from an explicit rule disallowing it, they don't have to show common courtesy to the actual, live people playing the game with them at the table? Really?
This is why I am unimpressed with the appeal to the lack of an agreed-upon playstyle. Common courtesy between players, and in particular players other than the DM, would mean not doing something to another's PC. Only when you've established, ideally explicitly but possibly implicitly (as a campaign I played years ago moved into such a contest between players — it worked, as everyone seemed to be on board), that PvP is fine to do should anyone think of doing it. The rule operative here is the rule of courtesy one has a right to expect when playing a game that is not, like poker, Monopoly, Risk, etc., intrinsically competitive.
You know, if I were in your shoes, I would have left him succeed on that sleight of hand. In turn, I would have made the coin he stole cursed, giving him disadvantage to all of his checks. If he then decided to just get rid of the cursed coin, make a ridiculously high DC for the will save, to where he is attached to his coin and becomes angry when anyone tries to take it from him. It would create a lot of openings for quests AND amuse your other players while pushing your rogue away from stealing from the group.
Oorgnid wrote:
Because it gives a lot to build off of. Creativity fuels quests. If it's ruining the player fun, then it's because you're making it that way. If anything, that rewards all players. The other players will feel rewarded for knowing his future stealing will be at a disadvantage as well as the player who is now cursed plays a key role to your quest line, giving that player a feel of importance. You're basically making that player feel as though they're now a big part of a branching quest while at the same time, still progressing with the whole group. Obviously you wouldn't just single him out making the others feel less important but I'm sure you catch the drift. I've never had any issue with such things. It also depends on the player. It builds into player's flaws and goals, can become something that player inspires to over come.
It's also a great way to keep players railroaded to a degree if they get far off the trail. Basically, a back up plan. I am in no way against players exploring the world I create, infact I inpsire it because it makes for great conversation and laughs along the way, but I also don't want the hours spent into making my quest to be wasted, so something like this would be a great way to get them back on track for a bit.
Also: Also, taking away the experience of letting a player RP their class takes away the fun. I actually enjoy characters like that. Never have I had a rogue bold enough to pick pocket of his group because fear of upsetting others would come up. To me, that's noble. He's simply RP'ing his class. I understand it gets out of hand, which is why using a cursed coin suggestion works. It lets him know he's not invincible. Same as if the group decides to kill NPCs for no reason, using guards/hired swords stronger than them to route the party is a good lesson learned.
Oorgnid wrote:
No where was it stated that the group agreed or disagreed to inter-party conflict by the OP. With that said, you should always, ALWAYS, assume the worst when DM'ing. People all have a mind of their own and they're going to use it. Just because the plot hook feels rewarding to the player, doesn't mean it's not a punishment. The disadvantages that come with the said plot hook IS the punishment. It's just a win win situation. If you want to tell a story, state it before you begin the quest. That way, everyone can be steamrolled into it and eventually fall apart. If you want to tell a legend, go off of player's actions. Allow them to feel as if their characters are real.
This is a Roleplaying game, where players are going to roleplay. If you're going to punish a character for roleplaying his class, why even play? He's a rogue, he picked a pocket. I'm not saying that because he's a rogue it justifies his actions but how people are looking at this is ludacris. We also do not know his previous griefing attempts. So to me, he's only acting occordingly. Now if he was intentionally trying to kill the group, then yes, he should be removed because it is going to cause conflict. As Noon said, it's fantasy currency. It's not as if they can go out and buy a Rolex with it.
I really thing it depends on if this guy is playing his character or just trying to rile the other players. If his thief sees the othe characters as a potential source of income, fine but he has to accept what happens afterwards. I find that players will keep their original character concept as long as possible and not evolve like a real person would.
with this guy, if the other players are happy to have the character in their party.id engineer a situation where the skulking rogue can aid or rescue the others and therefore redeem himself for his minor crime.
Oorgnid wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Oorgnid wrote:
This comes back to reading my posts. I stated how people were responding, not singling you out. You're doing a poor job at reading my posts. Again, we do not know the whole situation, but as I said before. The OP DID NOT STATE that there was an agreement of the group for against PvP interaction. So therefore, WHY punish him for playing his character to the role. This is a lot of WHAT IFS. Therefore, we can only assume the basics of what was said to begin with and go off of it.
Oorgnid wrote:
monkey-xuk wrote:
I wouldn't put it to a vote. I would ask what everyone's preference would be, then if some of those preferences were incompatible I would ask the players who were at odds if there was a middle ground they would both/all be willing to accept, and if there was not, I'd let them decide for themselves whether their desires as role players were too incompatible to enjoy the same game, or if they could come up with an alternative they would both/all enjoy.
Llenlleawg wrote:
Noon, I can't really be bothered if you want to criticize me without actually following the conversation.
You (# 26): Not accepting stuff can be as disruptive as doing stuff can be disruptive.
menakles (# 32, in reply to you): If someone punches me in the head for fun, am I in the wrong for spoiling his fun by calling the police? The false moral equivalence that you suggest is totally wrongheaded.
AaronOfBarbaria (# 34, in reply to menakles): That entirely depends on whether you happen to be in, for example, a boxing ring at the time or not. Noon is saying that both parties - the one wanting to do a thing they find to be fun, and the one that wants that thing to not happen - share responsibility for coming to an agreement before hand, and thus are both at fault if a disruption of the fun times arises.
me (# 38, in reference to AoB): re: punching in the head analogy. Actually, the guy doing the punching has a greater responsibiity to make sure that both parties think they are boxing. We don't and shouldn't have to signal that we don't want people to hit us, except in very peculiar or specific circumstances. So here, in playing a game (which pace Noon, hardly needs a rule about PvP; suggesting such is a red herring in this discussion) that is not intrinsically competitive, the person who acts against another player has the greater responsibility to see that this is the kind of game everyone has bought into.
I usually get general playing etiquette out of the way before starting any campaign. I usually let my players know that in my campaign, they are supposed to be the heroes, and that their characters should be able to function as a group. This means that they do not try to stab each other in the back, literally or by stealing. There may be exceptions, such as a rogue keeping some gold from a dungeon to himself, or not sharing equally. And maybe they'll try to take a key item from each other. But generally I inform them that they should try to play their characters in a way that allows the game to be fun for everyone, and will not destroy the party. It's fine if the characters sometimes have disagreements, and its great if such moments are played out at the table. Those make more excellent roleplaying moments. But I don't want players doing crimes against their fellow players. If a player decides to do that anyway, I pause the game, and remind them of the kind of game we are trying to run. Otherwise they should simply make a new character that can function within the group better.
If the group insists on booting a character out of the group, then the character should be forced to retire. It doesn't make sense to spend time DMing a character that isn't part of the group. I think that this rule should be clear to all players.
But it would probably be good to talk to have a group chat or personal chats with some of the players.