Alright-
Normally the fighter type's would get the thing that would enhance them right?
What happens when the rouge, who barely does anything (usually we travel with another rouge in the group because he won't even unlock and untrap things), takes the thing that would enhance the Fighter or the Barbarian?
The rouge is a strong enough character, good stats and all that- so it's not like the character sucks.
This rouge has "taken" things from, unique items that the GM has thrown into the game that would benefit the group that he does not even use.
So, what happens when one or two PCs want to kill another PC in the town of Westcrown?
Sounds like that guy needs to probably not be at the table. Anyone who purposefully impinges on the other players' fun should go. Let me guess... he's chaotic neutral?
Is this a player problem or a character problem?
Honestly, though, most character problems are the result of player problems.
If a player isn't playing his character (the rogue not disarming and unlocking stuff), I would say the player can choose a different character.
If the player isn't interested in this option, see the result below.
If the player is being a jerk, it's time to ask that player to shape up or leave. We play these games for fun; if someone is destroying other people's fun, it's time to give that person the boot.
Unless there are details you didn't post, that's my advice.
Well, in-character conflict is best solved in-character. Out-of-character conflict is best solved between the players.
This is one of the reasons my group has moved to a strict wealth by level system. All treasure is essentially given as cash and spread out evenly and the players can buy whatever they would like. Time between levels (which is usually weeks or months in-game) can be spent commissioning special items or seeking specific things.
In this case, however, it would entirely depend on how "in character" the rogue's actions are. If he is a klepto and steals anything that has value, then stealing from the party is a between-characters issue that probably shouldn't be solved with execution (assuming a good/neutral party). If this character isn't meshing with the group, then the party should expel him and that player should be allowed to bring in a new character.
If the actions are a blatant power grab, or some sort of childish greed of items, then it should be handled between the players. If the player is just being a jerk, and essentially not playing well with others and breaking the social contract between players, then he needs to be made aware of how the other players feel about the situation as politely as possible. Again, he should be allowed to reform or retire the current character and then be allowed to continue with the group. As long as he plays nice, he'll be fine. Just make sure that everyone (not just this player) is aware of the social contract that the group has implied its consent to. This may be the job of the GM. If the player is unwilling to change, then you may have to kick him out of the table. This should be a last resort though, and not a first action. Tabletop gaming is, ultimately, a social event and if your group is unable to deal with each other with civility because of game mechanics and rules and classes and gear, then you might consider other games. Local game shops have hundreds of intricate and involved strategic board games (not just Monopoly and Risk).
One other thing.. does anyone say anything to this guy when he just takes all the loot? If he's never made aware that it's not acceptable or is ruining other peoples' good times he'll just keep on doing it.. especially if he sees it as being in his character's nature. Now, if the guy is just greedy as a person and needs to have all the imaginary swords to himself to feel like he's cool, you probably don't need that at the table.
I have a very similar problem in a new group I just joined. The CN halfling rogue is greedy as hell. On top the fact that my character is LN (the only L character in an otherwise C group). I hardly get anything of value for my character because of his greed. In fact, my gear (including money) totals no more than 5k gp (it's probably less) at 5th level. Luckily the DM is one that has fun with how the PCs react to each other, he kinda likes some of the ideas I want to run with for my character. ;)
Thanks for the comments!
I think that he thinks that his character is being cool, mainly spending time in shadows and rolling disguise checks none of us care what he looks like and it's during weird times, which is amusing because a player who left our group would do that and the rouge's player wouldn't stop making fun at him.
Other character's that he plays (we play on Friday and Saturday) seem to be, well, lazy.
He claims that the rouge is NG. Earlier on in the game while combat carried on, he stood in the hall way talking to the NPC we had with us.
Now he want to become an assassin.
I'm the treasure keeper for this adventure. I like the suggestion that Mauril has about the strict wealth system, going to have to give that a try.
Usually those who benefit from the particular items we find roll percentage dice for them, the fighter and my barbarian rolled and then he happily announced that he beat us both...
Thank's for letting me rant :)
One other thing.. does anyone say anything to this guy when he just takes all the loot? If he's never made aware that it's not acceptable or is ruining other peoples' good times he'll just keep on doing it.. especially if he sees it as being in his character's nature. Now, if the guy is just greedy as a person and needs to have all the imaginary swords to himself to feel like he's cool, you probably don't need that at the table.
Good point. It's funny, he told the Alchemist and wizard not to roll because "when do you get in combat?" I guess someone needs to tell him the same thing.
Minor note though- when I ran the Rise of the Runelords, he gained the most greed and gluttony points.
Normally the fighter type's would get the thing that would enhance them right?
If you follow "Need Before Greed" then yes. Not everyone believes/plays this way.
What happens when the rouge, who barely does anything (usually we travel with another rouge in the group because he won't even unlock and untrap things), takes the thing that would enhance the Fighter or the Barbarian?
Just because a player chooses the rogue class doesn't mean the character is good at locks and traps. He could be focused in sneaking and pickpocketing.
This rouge has "taken" things from, unique items that the GM has thrown into the game that would benefit the group that he does not even use.
So far I've been playing devils advocate, but this is a point where I would like more clarification. Is the rogue in question just taking loot to accumulate wealth but not actually using it? If so, this is not necessarily a problem but possibly a roleplay angle. Or, is the rogue taking loot purely to deny it to the other characters? This is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
In the first case, the solution could be as simple as having the other characters offer to buy the items from the rogue. This satisfies the rogue's need for loot while putting the items back into play and into the most effective hands.
In the second case, the player is acting as a spoiler, actively trying to sabotage the other characters. This would be an issue that requires sitting down with the player and having a little chat about being part of a group and what that means.
He doesn't pickpocket, just sneaks- comments on how poorly the other rouges are compared to his open device skill.
I though about this for a while after Freesword brought it up, I it's a combination of hording goods and just wanting to keep them from other players, leaning more towards the hording/not using side of things.
We usually agree that items go to the party member who can most benefit the party by having it. If you don't have that explicit "contract" within your party it might be time to do so. Barring that you might try the "even-split" thing where everything found goes into a pool and is split evenly - if someone wants to "buy" a found item they pony up enough of their cash split to play half of the cost of the item, otherwise it gets sold.
M
Oh, also, tongue-in-cheek: I think the rouge should only lay claim to whatever sponge applicators the party might come across. ;P~ Maybe bristle-sticks too, assuming the party doesn't need them for Nystul's Magical Pigments (or whatever non-descript name they've been given in Pathfinder). :) Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I can't remember when I last played or GMed a game where it wasn't "need before greed" for magic items and other gear. Only if more than one player wanted/needed the same item would anyone roll for it, and the loser got the first choice next time they both wanted the same item.
My suggestions are (based strictly on what you have provided):
Best one: suggest a "need before greed" rule for the party, see if the rest of the players can out vote the greedy rogue.
2nd best one: If all the other players (5 out of 6?) always roll for all of the items, they can switch them, trade them, give them, etc. to the player that can make the best use of them. All except for the greedy rogue, who is left out in the cold (until they reform).
3rd best one (and a nasty one too): do not support the rogue when in heavy combat, or support them last. Once the rogue dies, loot their gear and move on. If you have a choice between saving two people (or simply helping in a fight), you will likely help the one that you like best rather than the *&^%* who always pulls fast ones at your expense.
Its tough enough to get through adventures of appropriate levels with the proper number of people without having these kinds of problems.
I have played with people who intentionally attempt to disrupt the game, and to this day I still don't understand it. They always state "Well, thats how my character would act." Sure, maybe it would be, but there would also be consequences to acting in that way, and to be honest, the character wouldn't be in a party very long unless he was irreplaceable. In D&D noone is irreplaceable.
This is a DM-Player issue. Even if its an "in game issue" it needs to be solved. If people are feeling slighted, or not having fun, its only a matter of time before they find something else to do. Unfortunately, players are often conflict avoidant.
I think you speak to the other players, and if they have the same problems, you speak to the DM about it. Then either you can talk to the player with the whole group, or have the DM discuss the problem with them one on one. It really depends on which model you feel will be better accepted.
I have had this problem many times in the past. "My barbarian despises magic, and kills all magic users on sight!" I tell the guy, GREAT NPC, he won't be a player character in my game. The same can be said with the guy who says "I'm going to pretend to be a cleric trying to help the party, but secretly I'm an assassin trying to kill them all!" Unless the DM really has some purpose in letting this kind of thing go on, sorry, NPC, and NO, you can't play the NPC.
The world is full of jerks, but you notice, they only hang out with other jerks, or with people that can't get away from them. You don't have to game with them in-game or out of game.
Our group has let certain people die in the past... (evil laughter).
Seriously though, thanks for the tips.
Don't blame a rogue character for being greedy. It's their job! And it CAN be fun, even for the other characters.
But do blame a player who doesn't know when he trips the out-of-character line. Work with the player, and find a out-of-character solution. Talk. If that does not help, ask your GM to step in by reminding him that it is his job that all players enjoy their time equally.
Ultimately, do blame a GM that does nothing to stop in-character-wars becoming out-of-character wars. Talk to him first, though, and nicely, because some GMs sometimes are a bit lazy but will pull out amazing skills when confronted with group disbanding.
|
The best way to counter the greedy rogue is to be greedy yourself:
If you are the cleric, withhold healing unless he pays for it.
If you are the fighter, don't assist him when he gets surrounded by 3 or 4 opponents, and don't step in when he gets caught picking pockets.
If you are the wizard, never buff him.
If he starts complaining, remind him that HE was the one who wanted it this way.
While not uncommon the 'greedy' rogue can get a bit old. I remember several games where party members beefed up their spot/sense motive just to be able to call out the rogue when he's sneaking loot straight into his gold pouch. This can definately cause tension at any table, because roleplay or not, nobody likes getting the short end of the loot stick.
My group at this point just gives any useful items to whoever needs them most and divides up the rest evenly. This works because our DM's specifically include stuff for each character.
My suggestion to you is to establish a formal system of loot division at the table, both in game and out. One of the best recommendations is as follows:
All liquid goods (gold, jewels, art and other sellable goods, and unclaimed magic items) are divided equally among the party after an adventure.
During the adventure, when the group comes across a magic item, each party member who wishes to claim it may bid a portion of their earnings from this adventure in exchange for it. IE (I give up 1500gp of my share of the liquid assets for that ring of protection) If 2 or more people want it, they bid against eachother auction style. If anyones bid (or bids) end up adding up to more then their share of the final treasure, they owe the party the balance from the next one, and may not bid on an item untill it has been paid back.
At the end of the adventure, or the next rest period in a town/city, treasure is divided up, and bids payed off to the party.
I favor the organic approach. This should be solved in-game, not out. If he is just doing what his character would do (steal from his friends), then you should react how your character would react, in-game.
If your character is the type that would say nothing, then say nothing. If your character would report him to the authorities, do that. If it occurs outside of a town, kick him out of group (in game). If your character would steal back, then wait till he is sleeping and you are on guard duty. If your character is more vindictive, then by all means, attack him. If anyone says anything, say that your character has had enough of his character stealing from him.
He says he's playing his character. Play yours and react however your character would react. It boils down to character motivation. Is the thief a Kender type, or just a self-serving jerk? If he can hide behind the shield of character motivation, then so can you.
That said, I'm not a fan of the dice roll for loot approach, unless your characters are likely to pull some dice out of a pouch. But do whatever works for your group.
I favor the organic approach. This should be solved in-game, not out. If he is just doing what his character would do (steal from his friends), then you should react how your character would react, in-game.
If your character is the type that would say nothing, then say nothing. If your character would report him to the authorities, do that. If it occurs outside of a town, kick him out of group (in game). If your character would steal back, then wait till he is sleeping and you are on guard duty. If your character is more vindictive, then by all means, attack him. If anyone says anything, say that your character has had enough of his character stealing from him.
He says he's playing his character. Play yours and react however your character would react. It boils down to character motivation. Is the thief a Kender type, or just a self-serving jerk? If he can hide behind the shield of character motivation, then so can you.
That said, I'm not a fan of the dice roll for loot approach, unless your characters are likely to pull some dice out of a pouch. But do whatever works for your group.
I dont love the metagaming out of character approach either, but I have found it can be really frustrating for non-skilled characters. There are inveriably going to be some characters in the party that are terrible at noticing these sorts of things. In my groups early history where we didnt put a system in place, players would get angry because someone was playing a klepto rogue, and the other characters couldnt catch him because he was the one with the good spot check in the first place.
So while I agree that it's preferable to handle it in game, it isn't practical in alot of cases, since often the one searching for the loot is the one who can bluff everyone else into oblivion anyway.
|
|
It is not outside of reason for a character to be suspicious of another character that is very good at picking locks and pockets.
I could totally see a suspicious party wizard casting sleep and/or hold person on a resting rogue and then making a careful catalogue of all the rogue's posessions; then doing so again every week or so. He might even use modify memory to make the rogue forget that it happened.
|
In my experience, people only play the klepto rogue because they want to break the wealth-per-level guidelines for themselves without any benefit to the party (and, much more often, at the party's expense). That is why we split all treasure found, and in the case of items you put in gold equal to half it's value (since that's what would get split among the rest of the party were it sold) if you want to own it. This has worked amazingly in our group. Anything you earn yourself is always yours, so rogues that pick the pockets of NPC's don't have to share, and rogues that pick the pockets of PCs have to make a new character...
It is pretty easy to determine if a person actually enjoys the game, versus just showing up for a social event. It is also obvious if the person is very self centered, versus playing as a team member.
The former is much more difficult to deal with, as they have no interest in the game itself. Most likely they will have to leave, but in the latter case, you can follow others advice in regards to the character getting shunned or otherwise ignored when they need something. You can also standardize on a the loot system, but that tends to take away from the roleplaying.
As always, discuss an issue, because sometimes people are not aware of their behavior, or will claim ingnorance, until it is mentioned at the table.
|
|
Or, if he ever takes anything in game that does not rightfully belong to him, lift his car keys. Then use them to scratch a friendly message on his car, then break them off in his doors.
That, or talk to him and see what his problem is. This method doesn't quite carry the rush of petty theft and vandalism, though.
This reminds me of a section in the 2nd edition PHB.
The part I'm talking about has a hypothetical group of characters representing every alignment, trying to divide treasure.
Also,
Character conflict makes a good story, even if the characters are on the same side. There are plenty of examples, even in the fantasy genre: Aragorn & Boramir, Legolas & Gimli, Raistlin and Caramon, Tanis & Kitiara... Sometimes the characters end up working through their differences (first two examples), sometimes they don't (second two examples).
Work out your problems in character! This is a roleplaying opportunity, not a resource problem in a boardgame. What makes roleplaying fun for me is the ROLEplaying, not the ROLLplaying. If things work out between your characeters, great! If not, the DM now has a cool NPC to use against the party. One tailor made to your group, not some off-the-shelf NPC from a published source. Either way, it's good for the story.
Is the thief a Kender type, or just a self-serving jerk?
This is a personality problem. Having played in the healing-starved World 0f Dragonlance, back in the day, I never met a Kender who WASN'T a "self-serving jerk"! The racial write-up was only yet another excuse for seedier people to play out their personal character flaws, hoping that others would be forced to accept such anti-social behavior. My honorable fighter started killing every PC Kender in they game. I failed only because so many others joined in. One sap tried 3 straight CN Kender Thieves before he asked for a clue (Wish I was there that night!).
Hunterofthedusk wrote: "...rogues that pick the pockets of PCs have to make a new character..."
I've run about a dozen rogues since '99, been accused of stealing from the party with every one. Simple solution: I put up all my wealth, my accuser puts up half his and then pays for a Zone of Truth. I answer his questions, winner takes all. I'm batting 1.000! By a few levels later, my 'winnings' are no longer a serious advantage and their losses have been mostly replaced in loot. Problem: In one game, my two previous conquests, having learned their lessons, scared off MY pigeon by betting that he would lose!
Character conflict makes a good story, even if the characters are on the same side.
True, but pulling a Borat is not good for the social fabric. If a player in my game is messing things up for my game, I (as GM) am duty bound to call them on it. I am in charge. My responsibility. That is why I get the big hat. No drunks. No smoking. Cussing to a minimum. No stealing within the party. No being a jerk! Don't PO the GM.
|
|
See, by my saying that any rogue that picks a PCs pockets has to make a new character, I meant that any player that turns to the DM and says "I take Hunter's money when he isn't looking" gets force-fed acid in his sleep. It's like eye-for-an-eye, but more like murder-for-a-sleight.
This, of course, happens very rarely because in the party I GM for I put it right out there and made everyone agree that no one would try and undermine any other player. By proxy, it is a rule that has been picked up by my players when they GM. Inter-party conflict is something that I try to avoid with every fiber of my being, because I am an extremely spiteful person and I know I will go too far in retaliation.
It's kind of an out of character problem, but an in character one too.
Very often the player thinks that this is a way to 'win' the game by getting more loot and taking less risks than everyone else. Sometimes the player will get the hint when the rest of the party just make clear that this is unacceptable behaviour.
If a character is unwilling to pull their weight in the party, and loot 'goes missing' around them, the PCs should do what they likely would do were the situation a real one: ditch the character who isn't pulling their weight. It needn't be done nastily, it can be delivered in a straight: "Look, you aren't much use to us if you come along, and if you do then you'll just demand a share of the loot you haven't worked toward, so thanks for volunteering, but you can stay behind."
If the problem with the player persists, then it's a player problem.
Character conflict makes a good story, even if the characters are on the same side.True, but pulling a Borat is not good for the social fabric. If a player in my game is messing things up for my game, I (as GM) am duty bound to call them on it. I am in charge. My responsibility. That is why I get the big hat. No drunks. No smoking. Cussing to a minimum. No stealing within the party. No being a jerk! Don't PO the GM.
Yeah, but I have seen this approach backfire. 2nd ed, I was playing a pure fighter, another jackass was playing a ranger/mage drizzt wannabe. The DM let him cast dibilating and annoying spells on me all day long. When I finally got sick of it in character and out, I decided it was time to teach his character a lesson by beating him within an inch of his life. I took a swing, and the DM said you automatically miss. He told me flat out that I could not ever attack another character and you will always miss. I left the game soon after that. A one sided prank war like that just isn't fun.
The thing is the guy knew exactly what the DMs inter party rules were and he was always riding the line. I really wish I had punched the guy in the face IRL and walked out.
We value everything, add up the total, divide by the number of people in the party + 1. You can buy things out of the loot with your share, for what we could sell it for. One's ability to snatch up all the good stuff goes away fairly rapidly.
This is the kind of distribution method I like too, although it tends to result in selling items that are sort-of-but-not-always useful (e.g. no one is really willing to pay for a Ring of Animal Friendship out of their personal share of the treasure, even though it could definitely come in handy from time to time).
We value everything, add up the total, divide by the number of people in the party + 1. You can buy things out of the loot with your share, for what we could sell it for. One's ability to snatch up all the good stuff goes away fairly rapidly.This is the kind of distribution method I like too, although it tends to result in selling items that are sort-of-but-not-always useful (e.g. no one is really willing to pay for a Ring of Animal Friendship out of their personal share of the treasure, even though it could definitely come in handy from time to time).
The real problem is the swords and wands vs rings and wonderous items. Everyone wants and can use armor most of the generic rings and wonderous items. Even if the wizard isn't a front line fighter, they are often the target of spells and ranged attacks so a ring of protection or amulet of NA is just as useful to a wizard as it is to the party tank. Meanwhile, weapons and wands are only useful to some members of the party, and thus they are not very valuable to most of the party. So, the barbarian just got a new shiny greatsword that is worth 18k gold, while the rest of the party is squabbling over the 4k ring of protection +1.
Our method of handling loot has evolved to this. We Id items when we get a chance to rest, so we usually have multiple items. Start with the least wanted items first. If you get an item, then you automatically lose to anyone who has gotten less than you. If you get an item that replaces another item, then you put your old item into the group pool for another player. If multiple people want an item, d20 for it. If someone hasn't gotten any loot in the last few sessions is rolling against someone who has we will politely suggest that the person who has gotten stuff let them have it. Finally, take everything that is left that no one wants, sell it and split it evenly with the extra share going to a group pool that we use for items that benefit the entire group, like healing wands and the like. This is all handled by the players, the DM generally stays out of it unless there is a question of what an item does.
I ended up with an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location, a 35k item, because no one else in the party wanted it. As a cleric, I am the only person with a strong alignment, and I have reasons for wanting to hide it. It was a steal at twice the price.
Meanwhile, we have 3 people in the party who use greatswords. I am waiting for the DM to gives us a really awesome greatsword. That is going to be interesting.
The real problem is the swords and wands vs rings and wonderous items. Everyone wants and can use armor most of the generic rings and wonderous items. Even if the wizard isn't a front line fighter, they are often the target of spells and ranged attacks so a ring of protection or amulet of NA is just as useful to a wizard as it is to the party tank. Meanwhile, weapons and wands are only useful to some members of the party, and thus they are not very valuable to most of the party. So, the barbarian just got a new shiny greatsword that is worth 18k gold, while the rest of the party is squabbling over the 4k ring of protection +1.We value everything, add up the total, divide by the number of people in the party + 1. You can buy things out of the loot with your share, for what we could sell it for. One's ability to snatch up all the good stuff goes away fairly rapidly.This is the kind of distribution method I like too, although it tends to result in selling items that are sort-of-but-not-always useful (e.g. no one is really willing to pay for a Ring of Animal Friendship out of their personal share of the treasure, even though it could definitely come in handy from time to time).
That's not how it works in my experience. First of all, that would be a very strange adventure that has 22,000 gp in treasure with 18,000 gp tied up in a +3 greataxe. Second of all, the folks I've played with are patient enough to wait until (a) some cool piece of treasure comes up for their PC, or (b) they have enough gold to buy something cool for their PC.
Good ideas, talked with my GM about the suggestions posted and we will be trying some...
In the beginning of the Council of Thieves AP, I tried to make it more fair (the value of items were taken out gold we found), slipped away for that... might be going back to that...
The real problem is the swords and wands vs rings and wonderous items. Everyone wants and can use armor most of the generic rings and wonderous items. Even if the wizard isn't a front line fighter, they are often the target of spells and ranged attacks so a ring of protection or amulet of NA is just as useful to a wizard as it is to the party tank. Meanwhile, weapons and wands are only useful to some members of the party, and thus they are not very valuable to most of the party. So, the barbarian just got a new shiny greatsword that is worth 18k gold, while the rest of the party is squabbling over the 4k ring of protection +1.
I just can't figure out this perspective. I mean, I'm trying to, but it just seems like one has to be 12 years old for this to make sense.
At tables I play at, having each party member be more effective at what they contribute is a good thing. I want to make sure that the ring goes to whomever can get the most use out of it because the more effective the other people are, the more they are going to be able to cover my backside when I need them to.
Look at is this way. Lets save you have a well played god wizard who hangs out at the back of the combat and casts extremely useful spells like haste, wall of stone, etc. In short, they control the battlefield to limit inccomming damage, and generally make everyone else more effective in combat. You want them to be able to keep doing their job.
So now the bad guy throws a feeble mind at the wizard will save at a -4 if he fails he is out of the fight. Too bad you gave that cloak of resistance to the fighter because he gets attacked more often....
So now the bad guy throws a disintegrate at the wizard, touch attack + fort save against a target with low health and weak fort saves. To bad you gave the ring of protection to the fighter because he gets attacked more often.....
The wizard may not get attacked as often, but when they do get attacked, they often need the protection from these items a lot more. thus everyone needs items like amulet of NA, ring of protection, and cloak of resistance. If you do it any other way, you might as well give everything to the tank, and everyone else gets to fight over the hand me downs.
The problem with the "what's best for the party route" is perception is often screwed--even when everybody can agree on what is best.
For example, I play a lot of wizards who sit in the backrow and hurl spells. Because I am so far removed from most battles (and have defensive buffs to boot) I rarely ever take any damage at all.
Because of that, I never get any bracers of armor, cloaks of resistance, stat-boosting items, or anything of the sort. After all, I'm doing fine.
And then something breaks past the fighter and kills me. Why? Because I didn't have a decent armor class or a belt of constitution.
try not to let that happen to your group.