| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a game. When I play Risk with my friends, I also mercilessly slaughter the troops they left in Australia. In Monopoly I'm going to clean them out if they land on my hotel on Park Place. Etc.
All these examples are of PvP games, not team games. If you are playing soccer, and the goal-keeper lets goals in because he's been bribed by the other side, the rest of the team are entitled to be annoyed because he has broken the team contract.
RPGs can be played as a team game or as a PvP game - and PvP games are fine, too, if you like that sort of thing - but the default is a team game with an unspoken contract of mutual support among the party. When the party has to act as a team and one player decides unannounced that it's a PvP, then you have a problem.
Now, a player who's the unscrupulous character every time is a problem player, not a problem character -- but if your players aren't like that and still can't separate character actions from player actions, they have a maturity problem.
But we are talking about the situation where a player is consistently playing unscrupulously at the rest of the party's expense and expecting to get away with it, not a one-off event. Further, when your character is doing something bad to the other PCs, it is you controlling the character, no-one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to have them act like a douche. There is no "but I'm only doing what my character would do" excuse, because you choose to play that character that would do these things.
If it's something they do not like, even if they do not know about it, you are spoiling your supposed friend's fun and that violates the social contract of gaming:
The only 'wrongbadfun' is spoiling the fun of other players.
That's also not to say that I haven't run campaigns in which I say something like: everyone is making a good-aligned PC this time. But that's not every game.
And I have played PvP games that were clearly such, and had fun. I have played in games that were 'heroes all' and had fun. The only time it's a problem is when one player decides to run a character that is an antithesis to the others, and unfortunately it seems RD's situation is one of these.
All these examples are of PvP games, not team games. If you are playing soccer, and the goal-keeper lets goals in because he's been bribed by the other side, the rest of the team are entitled to be annoyed because he has broken the team contract.
Might be closer to basketball, where one player hogs the ball half the night so he can pad his own stats.
The team will still win... but he gets something extra out of it at everyone's expense.
Might be closer to basketball, where one player hogs the ball half the night so he can pad his own stats.
The team will still win... but he gets something extra out of it at everyone's expense.
You assume the team will still win. By depriving the other players of goodies, the GM either has to softball the encounter or the 'team' will have a much harder time. With the first, players will soon catch on to their being shorted on loot while the thief always seems to have more stuff. The second almost always results in TPKs. A nearby game with two thieving players (mage and Barbarian) had a TPK because the Cleric couldn't afford good armor.
in character: the barbarian doesn't like getting less gold so he chop the rogue's head off.
Paladin: stealing is evil, thus you detect as evil (see detect evil), then i can smite you in the name of law, justice and good.
You assume the team will still win. By depriving the other players of goodies, the GM either has to softball the encounter or the 'team' will have a much harder time.
You realise of course that, since the advent of Challenge Rating guided monsters and encounters, the GM is already playing softball. The GM has, in fact, always played softball, which is why characters never have to face a dragon in a pitfight at first level without the cry of "no fair" usually followed by grumbles of "bad GMing" while either make another character or seek a better game.
It's up to the GM to ensure that the gameworld is challenging enough to create a good story and not so deadly as to end that story prematurely. If the party has less gear, and is obviously struggling with encounters, then the Challenge Rating gives a good guide as to what you can throw at them e.g. Struggling with CR5 encounter, then try not to give them too many CR7, or even reduce to CR3 to give them a sense of achievement. The party will eventually level up and move on.
At least one published adventure path (name ommited to stop spoiling player fun and pride)take higher CR creatures and "knobble" them with the odd -2, in order to give the excitement of the challenge with a less likely TPK.
What the GM faces the character with is a judgement call. Wealth by Level and Challenge Ratings are there to make the GMs job easier, a guide for the GMs pitch. They are not there as "rules to be obeyed or the game will be no fun".
The players can also make judgement calls as to what they can face straight up, and what the have to skirt (or even run away from).
If one thief stealing treasure leads to Total Party Kill because "we didn't have a Vorpal Pencil Sharpner or Sheild of Numerical Certainty." then there is more wrong with the game than just the one character/player.
You assume the team will still win. By depriving the other players of goodies, the GM either has to softball the encounter or the 'team' will have a much harder time. With the first, players will soon catch on to their being shorted on loot while the thief always seems to have more stuff. The second almost always results in TPKs. A nearby game with two thieving players (mage and Barbarian) had a TPK because the Cleric couldn't afford good armor.
Yep, I assume the team still wins :)
Treasure is too fluid in these games to be the 'all or nothing' necessity people are making it out to be. There is always treasure that is missed in the dungeon. Always SOME enemies who either escape or are set free... Always some potions that were drunk too early and aren't around for the end fight...
If the party only collects 7 +1 swords and get 50g a piece instead of 9 +1 swords and 75g a piece in their 15th encounter... and that kills the group.
Theres a more serious problem.
You assume the team will still win. By depriving the other players of goodies, the GM either has to softball the encounter or the 'team' will have a much harder time.....
If one thief stealing treasure leads to Total Party Kill because "we didn't have a Vorpal Pencil Sharpner or Sheild of Numerical Certainty." then there is more wrong with the game than just the one character/player.
Then there is something wrong with the entire game, because it has assumed Wealth By Level in gear for PCs. If they have less than that gear, they have trouble dealing with encounters, if they have more than that gear, it gets to be a walkover. Most APs and most homebrews work on this assumption as it is built into the CR and treasure award system. If one player has way more and everybody else has less, then they struggle while he cakewalks, and it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast.
|
Actually, it doesn't really matter how much treasure is *missed*, because a dm has written down all that treasure already, and he knows what was missed. It's wealth by level, not wealth plus a bunch of gold and items missed by level. If your party misses it, then it doesn't apply to the WBL goalpost you're shooting for.
However, when the party has someone stealing from it, either the gm can set up encounters where the stealing party doesn't get any loot -which becomes very obvious and will eventually give the thief away- or he can keep going on like normal and allow the thief to amass more gold and thus more power than the rest of the group.
Most APs and most homebrews work on this assumption as it is built into the CR and treasure award system. If one player has way more and everybody else has less, then they struggle while he cakewalks, and it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast.
This being the case then the obvious thief can be discovered pretty fast, and dealt with by the party members. All this without recourse to an "official" ban by the GM which, to me, damages the suspension of disbelief (or at the very least lacks finesse).
My current players would be more annoyed with blanket behaviour bans for their characters than with a player whose character was stealing from them. Their characters on the other hand...
And for those who say that this could lead to someone making a character who will just kill the party in their sleep "because you have not banned it" and excuse this with "I was roleplaying my character".... It hasn't happened yet after 30ish years of playing this way.
Most APs and most homebrews work on this assumption as it is built into the CR and treasure award system. If one player has way more and everybody else has less, then they struggle while he cakewalks, and it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast.This being the case then the obvious thief can be discovered pretty fast, and dealt with by the party members. All this without recourse to an "official" ban by the GM which, to me, damages the suspension of disbelief (or at the very least lacks finesse).
I agree, if the thief takes a heavy toll it will usually be noticed, if he takes a little, it doesn't matter - it's rare that it will have a major impact, but it can.
My current players would be more annoyed with blanket behaviour bans for their characters than with a player whose character was stealing from them. Their characters on the other hand...
It depends on the players, I think. Most groups don't need to be told not to 'Richard' with their character's allies, so blanket bans are not needed, but there's always one.
And for those who say that this could lead to someone making a character who will just kill the party in their sleep "because you have not banned it" and excuse this with "I was roleplaying my character".... It hasn't happened yet after 30ish years of playing this way.
I've seen it a few times, mostly many, many years ago when I was still a teenager. It has happened, and there's always going to be one player somewhere who thinks the game is all about getting one over the other players. Natural selection usually takes care of them, but they can spoil a few games in the meantime.
A number of rational and thought out responses to my arguements which you can read above.
Including...
I've seen it a few times, mostly many, many years ago when I was still a teenager. It has happened, and there's always going to be one player somewhere who thinks the game is all about getting one over the other players. Natural selection usually takes care of them, but they can spoil a few games in the meantime.
I think you are probably spot on with the natural selection theory, I mainly play with a group that has formed over years, or with satellite groups recomended by, and sometimes played in, by my core players.
There are no Richards. I have seen Richards at other tables in game clubs, and even had a few "probable" Richards ask to join my own games, but I'm grouchy enough to avoid this now. (they seem easier to spot these days or I'm getting pickier).
Perhaps what I'm saying is that I choose to play with guys, and girls, that I don't have to give blanket rules to. Every single player does, at some point, GM and understand the needs of a game world/story/strong campaign. Maybe I'm spoiled, but for goodness sake (to the guys who have all sorts of TPKs and Richardish behaviour in their groups) go ahead and spoil yourselves. Find a game group where the GM doesn't rule with an iron fist, and find players who won't make him.
It's not that my players wouldn't steal, sell out, backstab, blackmail or otherwise "do over" another character. It's just that it would always be for good in-game reasons that everyone round the table can understand (even if they don't know about it til after).
Disclaimer: No offence is meant to anyone actually called Richard, it's a euphamism.
Then there is something wrong with the entire game...it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast.
I suggest you try a CR 15 encounter with a party of 4 of appropriate level, but with half the 'recommended' gear.
I can agree that 'there is something wrong...', but that has been a feature since I started playing in '75. Heck, I was thrilled when they took out the 'requires +3 weapon to hit' nonsense. It does make it harder to 'foreshadow' a later encounter by planting clue magic items (fire resistance potions when you have an Efreet for the BBEG) when a player keeps swiping 'just some little stuff'. Does that qualify for 'natural selection'?
I agree with Ingenwulf on the phobia about banning player behavior and also the avoidance of bottleneck items, events, foes, etc. However, I run games as challenging as I can, recognizing that if my dice go 'hot', I can easily TPK with a -3CR foe (again). Small theft can easily be missed, rarely bumping one player significantly, but major league rip offs will be noticed.
If it's something they do not like, even if they do not know about it, you are spoiling your supposed friend's fun and that violates the social contract of gaming:
The only 'wrongbadfun' is spoiling the fun of other players.
I could as well argue that the supposed friend should be open to an idea of fun that isn't spoiled by intraparty intrigue.
Your argument, as written, can be used to justify all manner of ridiculous things. Maybe I only have fun if I get ALL the magic items. Who are you to spoil my fun by asking for your share? Maybe my rogue isn't having fun because the wizard at the table keeps overshadowing him. How dare you play wizard and spoil my fun? Etc.
I haven't read this whole thread, so this advice might have been given already.
First of all it should be made clear that this is a perfectly valid roleplaying decision. If the player decides this is a quirk or character flaw of the character, so be it. We really shouldn't be in the business of calling the player names for the actions of his character. God knows I have played my share of nasty characters, and having enough flaws of my own, I would be hate to be accused of their flaws as well.
But the long and the short of it is that with good DMing, he need not hurt the group in anyway by perusing this quirk of character.
Loot is not the only way of injecting wealth by level into a group of player characters. If the rogue skims, keep an eye on how much he pushing his personal wealth and adjust by reduce loot the party find. You can then adjust the discrepancy through item specifically for the other characters, given to them by their support networks, be those church, families, god, nightly orders, bardic collages or what ever suits. Use setting and story to fix the problem.
It is of cause important to make sure all the players understand what it happening too, so that the rogue's player doesn't feel left out or cheated.
All of that is seperate from how it is dealt with in character of cause, but really this shouldn't be a big deal out of character if you just all act like adults and work it out, rather than following some of the advice I have seen up thread, which sound like a recipy for game break down.
|
Lawful characters are reliable; they tell the truth and keep their word. A character who betrays another character is pretty much the opposite of reliable, honest, and honorable. Ergo, chaotic.
You're making a leap there. That Chaotic is the opposite of Lawful. They are not diametrically opposed the way that Good and Evil are, thus 'it is the opposite of Lawful, and must therefore be Chaotic' is missing the fact that the act can be Neutral. Take note, nothing in the Chaotic description says they are unreliable, dishonest, and dishonorable.
I don't recall if anyone suggested this, but if you had a 'loot skimmer' in the party, you could enforce WBL by not handing the party things that would be beneficial to the skimmer, nor easily skimmed. The GM can easily supply the party with extra +3 Full Plate or whatnot. Of course this depends a bit on HOW loot is distributed in the party, but the goal here is to render the skimmer's "theft" irrelevant to party WBL equality.
Of course, not enabling the skimmer in the first place helps. I'm always amazed that pay chests never seem to have accounting logs keeping track of how much money/stuff is supposed to be in that chest - something most organizations, including bad guys, take pretty seriously.
Thanks, I had lost that bookmark!
I could as well argue that the supposed friend should be open to an idea of fun that isn't spoiled by intraparty intrigue.If it's something they do not like, even if they do not know about it, you are spoiling your supposed friend's fun and that violates the social contract of gaming:
The only 'wrongbadfun' is spoiling the fun of other players.
Intrigue is one thing, but personally, I know of few people who's idea of fun involves being robbed, stabbed in the back and taken for a chump. I don't, and therefore I do think it reasonable to expect anyone else to enjoy putting up with it either.
Your argument, as written, can be used to justify all manner of ridiculous things. Maybe I only have fun if I get ALL the magic items. Who are you to spoil my fun by asking for your share? Maybe my rogue isn't having fun because the wizard at the table keeps overshadowing him. How dare you play wizard and spoil my fun? Etc.
Which is worse, one player not having fun, or three players not having fun? If you can only have fun by spoiling the fun for everyone else at the table, you are going to be one lonely gamer. Ultimately it comes down to the group-think of any particular group - some groups are always trying to get one over on each other and this is par for the course, others prefer the 'united we stand' approach. Whatever group you are with will have their own rules, but ultimately the majority rules.
|
Is a Rogue “skimming” treasure as he finds it “Role playing” or is he stealing from his adventuring companions?
If you have a player doing this, is this something you need to take care of as a GM?
How about if you are a player and another player is doing it? How do you deal with this?
And what if you are playing a rogue who is “Skimming”? does anyone have the right to tell you how to “role play” your character?
What do you all think? Thank you.
Stealing from the party by way of roleplaying is still stealing from the party. So both.
Is it the DMs place to step in? Beyond giving the other PCs a fair and reasonable chance to notice the skimming then I'd say no not really, since this is an in character problem it should be dealt with in character by the other PCs. The only other thing I'd do as a DM is out of game make sure that the player understands that they've opened the door on other characters retaliating and that I as the DM will not protect him should that occur.
As a player I'm ok with this sort of behaviour so long as when the character gets caught they don't get pissy and try to throw up words like roleplaying and alignment as a defense. My barbarian doesn't understand those words. He does understand the word steal and guess what he does to thieves.
Were I playing said skimmer then no. No one else gets to tell me how to play my character. That being said I don't get to tell anyone else how to play theirs so when my theft earns me a phantasmal killer from the wizard I shut the hell up and roll my saves because my character has it coming.
Torger
This. 100x this.
Do what is in-character. If the other players find out, they will also do what's in character. You are no different than any other character in the game world stealing from the party, such as a trusted NPC.
If your group have problems separating in-game IC from OOC, dont tell them. Pass notes to the GM. make sure the GM doesn't tell them either. You're probably better off that way anyways, just to be safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, thread necro.
What I find interesting is the comparison of the rogue "role-playing" his "skimming off the top" and the 2,000+ thread on the crafters who charge the party as "role playing".
I react to both the same way. In character, with the reaction my character would have based on his backstory, alignment, history, personality and mood.
In this case, the vast majority of my characters would not be pleased to discover there is a thief in their midst. Most of them would simply kill the rogue outright. Probably in his sleep.
The rest would likely try to rehabilitate the rogue. But not gently.
|
|
The comparison CAN be made though.
Some people believe (OOG) that all of the characters actions should further the good of the whole party. So stealing from the party is OOG Wrong, and charging the party more than the cost of materials for crafting is also OOG wrong.
AD and I both have the same belief here. It shouldnt be handled OOG, it should be Handled IG.
You treat the party member the same way you'd treat him if he wasn't another player. If he's robbing you, treat him however you'd treat an NPC doing the same. If he's charging you to make things, treat him how you'd treat any NPC who'd do the same. Make the same concessions you'd make for an NPC adventurer working alongside you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of Game resentment makes this simply a bad idea to even be allowed in your roleplaying group. It's a cooperative game. Its a game you play for fun. Don't add drama to it.
Make the decision before gameplay starts on how to handle treasure. Have a vote. If the players want to be able to steal from each other and kill each other then you can play that game. Everyone needs to know before hand what kind of game they're getting into, or else out of game resentment will ensue as well as anger towards other players.
People take their games seriously. More-so with tabletop roleplaying games. This will cause drama. Don't allow it unless it is agreed upon beforehand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, rogues are not necessarily the only ones with questionable morals. I'd say the best resolution for this would be if the rogue was seen by another scummish character - who blackmailed the rogue so as not to tell the others. I believe the correct wording would be "I own your ass". This makes sure the rogue either behaves or murders the other character. If he doesn't keep to what the blackmailer wants, the blackmailer can always say "I tried to give him a chance to show that he had learned something, I apparently thought too highly of such a despicable wretch."
|
|
Interesting thought, Kalavas.
There have been a couple games I've run into this kindof conflict, and since the vast majority of gamers I've gamed with think the way I do about this issue, I could never really place what the exact problem is.
I thought of it as stemming from an unacceptable lack of the ability to separate in character from out of character, and made a mental note to avoid gaming with those people in the future.
I suppose its definitely worth clearing in advance, because I'm not even really interested in a "cooperative game" OR a "competitive game" - I want something in-between. Which can be either cooperative or competitive, and maybe even both simultaneously, with interparty rivalries and grudges but a united ultimate goal. You know, stuff to make it more interesting.
If I'm expected to walk on eggshells and treat the other PCs differently than any NPC who behaves the same way, or if I have an OOG restriction on my actions to do whatever the rest of the group wants all the time, instead of going with what makes sense for the individual character I designed, I dont have fun, and the enforcement of those restrictions is likely to also create the same sort of Out of Game Resentment you're talking about.
In the future I will definitely be making sure we're clear on this issue ahead of time, and it will be a factor taken into close consideration with regard to who I game with, and to who I avoid gaming with.
"No PVP" has never been something I've been okay with. Sometimes PVP is Justified within the game. And I won't hand it over.
As you mentioned, people take their games seriously. Especially RPGs. Two things I take very seriously in my gaming are:
1. The Separation of in and out of character: In-Game and Out of Game are not the same. Keep them Separate, and Respond to your In-Game stuff in-game, and your out of game stuff out of game.
That Also means, don't get pissed off about in-character actions, out of character, and vice-versa.
Acting on out of game info in-game is something I'll lose respect for you for, and something I'll consider hostile and disruptive to gaming in general. Much more so than an irritating character (who can always be killed off).
(In Short, if you can't keep it in the game, and can't keep your oog stuff out of the game, I probably don't consider you mature enough to want you in my gaming group.)
2. The group is comprised of individuals, both the players and characters. Your goals don't have to match, and you should have independent goals and depth to your characters. There is no requirement for those goals to mesh, unless the players specifically talk it over and agree to do that. If the goals don't mesh, and conflict arises, refer to #1.
I actually played in one of these groups.
CN (shorthand for 'I can do pretty much anything I want, nyah, nyah in the hands of this player) rogue skimmed, swindled and cheated the party, so everyone was pretty much under-equipped (yes, him as well, since he 'converted' his phat loot into easily transportable jewelry), the player merrily gloating about being able to take us all for a ride, and since we do not realize a thing IC, there's nothing we can do, hurr hurr.
Yeah, way to make others like you for your terrific roleplay.
With the group getting under-equipped, we ran into increasingly difficult situations. GM stated that 'this is entirely the party's problem', and that he has zero incentive of changing the adventure as written. "There's enough stuff for you in there to tackle all challenges, and if you can't use it, don't find it, or the party does not distribute things well enough, any problems you might find insurmountable are entirely your own fault, as a party."
Comment of the offending player: "Hey, I'm just roleplaying my character... and if someone gets killed, so what? Not my problem. And... if it is my character that bites the dust; no biggie, I can easily make another one."
Still riding the 'those issues have to be solved IC' boat?
Interesting thought, Kalavas.
In the future I will definitely be making sure we're clear on this issue ahead of time, and it will be a factor taken into close consideration with regard to who I game with, and to who I avoid gaming with. + stuff.
Ya. This is all you need to do.
I hear you with not wanting restrictions on how you play, and wanting your gamers to keep issues in the game and not out of it. This can work with mature players.I've always felt that Pathfinder has a built in subsystem of expected magic items by level, so when items/gold aren't being evenly distributed some players fall behind the curve and can't perform at the level they are expected to perform for the CR of monsters they are facing.
I'm the type of player who just wants to play the campaign without drama in game or out between players, and have everyone work cooperatively. I would vote for no killing each other and no stealing, but there's all sorts of ways to play.
I have this personality flaw where I feel that games should be fair for each player involved in it. I get annoyed when I think other players are cheating. It might be a maturity thing, or a personality thing, probably both.
|
|
Still riding the 'those issues have to be solved IC' boat?
In this case, the jerky problem player can't go on forever without being caught. Not to mention, if the players feel ill-equipped to handle the a mission due to simply not being good enough, they have every right to not take the mission, and not go on the planned adventure, and do something they're more capable of instead.
The GM would have to roll with it if they decide: We're not going to go into the beholder cave.. We're level 12 with level 6 gear. Past experiences will give them a decent idea what sort of danger they can handle. Some Knowledge checks will definitely do that.
The jerky player could be fixed with a well placed geas or command. He could also be clubbed for his indiscretions, looted, and made to follow the rest of the group very poorly equipped.
He's playing a character who doesn't believe in combat gear and just likes money, arguably he's barely even playing an adventurer at this point. You could always just leave him in some town to swindle other people and move on without him. You have no obligation to bring him with you. Part of that whole "individuals in a group" thing I mentioned. When he makes a new character? If he's another no-good cheat, the party doesn't have to take him with them if they don't want to. Treat him like any other character (NPC or PC, shouldnt matter). They meet him, they evaluate him, and if they dont like him, they dont hire him on. If they decide later they dont like him, they vote on it and ditch him if need be.
If the player doesnt like his characters getting kicked he can make a character where that doesn't happen, or play smarter.
So yeah. I'm still on the "solve it in game" boat.
|
|
Ya. This is all you need to do.
I hear you with not wanting restrictions on how you play, and wanting your gamers to keep issues in the game and not out of it. This can work with mature players.
I've always felt that Pathfinder has a built in subsystem of expected magic items by level, so when items/gold aren't being evenly distributed some players fall behind the curve and can't perform at the level they are expected to perform for the CR of monsters they are facing.
This is true. If the players fall behind they dont have to take on challenges of their CR though. But yeah. That "Expectation of being a magical xmas tree" is a pet peeve about pathfinder.
I'm the type of player who just wants to play the campaign without drama in game or out between players, and have everyone work cooperatively. I would vote for no killing each other and no stealing, but there's all sorts of ways to play.
Hey. Whatever works for you. Personally I may not necessarily do either of those, but I resent having them taken off the table; and reserve the right to kill a traitorous character (and wouldnt want the option of them becoming a traitor to be taken off the table either).
I have this personality flaw where I feel that games should be fair for each player involved in it. I get annoyed when I think other players are cheating. It might be a maturity thing, or a personality thing, probably both.
I get annoyed when another player is cheating too. I don't get annoyed when another character is cheating, however. I consider that to bea potential part of the game, when played fairly.
This is true. If the players fall behind they dont have to take on challenges of their CR though. But yeah. That "Expectation of being a magical xmas tree" is a pet peeve about pathfinder.
Lol, magical Christmas tree. Thats an awesome phrase, love it, and so accurate too. In some ways, it's a silly game we play when you stop and look at it from a different perspective.
One other thing I wanted to say about the pre-game disclaimer/vote. I would be able to handle stealing/killing way better if i knew that was on the table. I don't think there is a default way to play this game, but I do feel that forewarning should be given to new players about how your gaming group handles things of this nature. Failing to do this might cause out of game resentment. This needs to be avoided at all costs.
Yes both. Yes its both roleplaying a greedy thief, and its stealing.
So solve it in the same spirit, ya know.. tar and feather and hang the thief. All roleplaying ;)
|
|
@ Kalavas.
My Preferences are actually to either ditch the magical Xmas Tree and the CR system and decide what's an appropriate challenge as a GM (and make magic items rather uncommon) a-la Conan d20;
or go the route a few have done on these forums, and work the magic item essentials into a point system that gives you inherent character abilities anyone can buy with the points (and drop the items themselves), and then WBL doesn't really affect encounters anymore.
Magic items generally won't be combat items. And if they are, they'll let you do a different damage type, or only give a +1, or something.
Plus, if the characters are less reliant on having THAT SPECIFIC GEAR its less of a mechanical problem if one player is skimming, and more of someone stealing your money you were going to use on ale and wenches.
It kindof solves both my pet peeve, and your mechanical concern about the thieving teammate.
I would care a lot as a GM.
If it isn't much (a copper pennies per ennemy), I would wait for some character to notice it, or ask. If the rogue lies to his face I would stop the game and tell the rogue player that he should not act against the group, ever, and if he envisions his character like that he should either change that personality trait or get a new character.
I'm pretty strict with ingame bickering, but it dampens fun way too fast to just "let it play out", in my opinion. Also if such a thing happens, it often means that the campaign is too easy, push ennemies until there is no time for such problems.