Lady-J wrote: every one is up in arms saying kill the rogue for what could be like 6 gold 7 silver and 3 copper peices......
we dont have exact numbers so stop flipping your s*+$ saying burn the rogue at the steak
Burning steak is a terrible crime. It should be seared, but not burned. Like the song says, it should be warm, bloody and tender.
Irontruth wrote: Lady-J wrote: every one is up in arms saying kill the rogue for what could be like 6 gold 7 silver and 3 copper peices......
we dont have exact numbers so stop flipping your s*+$ saying burn the rogue at the steak
Burning steak is a terrible crime. It should be seared, but not burned. Like the song says, it should be warm, bloody and tender. Yeah I can't do bloody the iron taste brings me flash backs of when I almost bleed to death I'm good with a soft medium at best.
Edit: yeah ok sorry now that was off topic.
swoosh wrote: ohako wrote: Would one PC like to BLuff another PC? Okay. Tell them to lie to their face. This is what PCs are for: roleplaying with other PCs. Don't let dice get in the way of that. If you can't convincingly lie to another PC, then you don't, high Bluff or not. Except one of the core components of roleplaying is the role part. A role that very often does not line up with real-world capabilities or expectations. So you have someone who isn't good at reading people play a character with a very high sense motive and suddenly their skills are invalidated when dealing with certain characters, because "don't let dice get in the way".
Sorry, but this suggestion is simultaneously immersion shattering, metagamey, punitive to people playing outside their comfort zone and decreases ic/ooc separation all at once. I don't think someone could top that even if they tried. Yeah, whenever a DM insists that a player convincingly lie (or even just role play diplomacy), it bugs me. It's akin to forcing a player to break down a door because they want their barbarian to do so.
Vidmaster7 wrote: Irontruth wrote: Lady-J wrote: every one is up in arms saying kill the rogue for what could be like 6 gold 7 silver and 3 copper peices......
we dont have exact numbers so stop flipping your s*+$ saying burn the rogue at the steak
Burning steak is a terrible crime. It should be seared, but not burned. Like the song says, it should be warm, bloody and tender. Yeah I can't do bloody the iron taste brings me flash backs of when I almost bleed to death I'm good with a soft medium at best.
Edit: yeah ok sorry now that was off topic. Off topic EDUT: unless you're doing your own butchery, your meat isn't going to be bloody in any case, they drain that stuff. The fluid is just water and myoglobin protein.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sundakan wrote: You're also missing a big point here: RPGs are not books or other passive media. If your character is an a#@$~#@, everyone at the table has to deal with you acting like a jackass for 4-7 hours at a time every week. It grates. It gets old. It really doesn't add as much to the story as you think it does.
Characters can have conflicts without a player going out of his way to make everybody miserable at the table week in and week out to make the story "better". The BEST CASE SCENARIO is this kind of character gets a quick comeuppance and is either replaced or learns their lesson...as all of my AND your examples do. This either results in an isolated incident or a revolving door character. In either case, it's just as well handled by an NPC.
The healthier conflicts (and more interesting ones) are all represented in those same media. Gimli and Legolas have a rivalry, but neither would ever betray the other. Roy and Haley conflict...but Haley also has the best interests of the party in mind, just like the rest of them do. And so on, and so on.
Ideological conflicts add more to the game without being a betrayal of trust.
Why are you assuming that people are making each other miserable?
If someone is acting like an a%$&~&# because their character is an a%$&!%*, that is a problem with the person, not the character.
A vital part of group storytelling is that people are mature enough to actually tell the story in a manner that isn't awful. If they aren't, yeah, they need to tone it down.
(Note, of course, that I am in favor of the party responding to violations of trust in a way that makes sense. Having a character kicked out of the group when the group discovers they've been stealing stuff is fine by me. But for the general idea of significant conflict, betrayal, and having characters that are a&@+&!@s makes everyone miserable and don't work... that's what I don't agree with.)
From experience, the quality of non-deliberately PVP games improve when that kind of play goes away. We have players who insist on that kind of play that can no longer get into any table that isn't forced to take them. (Venue rules).
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: The rogue player should decide what he wants his next character to be when the other Pc's kick him out of the group or beat him to death. that's assuming that the players have not taken personal offence and are not kicking the player from the group for breaking the game's charter.
Klorox wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: The rogue player should decide what he wants his next character to be when the other Pc's kick him out of the group or beat him to death. that's assuming that the players have not taken personal offence and are not kicking the player from the group for breaking the game's charter. and what "charter" was broken?
play fair with the others.
Of course few tables have actual charters, but most live by an unwritten social contract, players who don't respect the same assumptions as the others tend to either ruin the game or get booted, (or the latter after doing the former)
Blymurkla wrote: Here's my top tip:
Learn to differentiate between players and player characters. And teach your players the difference too.
As many has pointed out in this thread, a player keeping secrets from other players can lead to a lot of hurt feelings.
But the thieving rogue is a fantasy trope engrained in our minds. It is an interesting character to play. Yet, how to do it without causing arguments and trouble with your fellow players?
Well, you tell the table what you're doing. Loudly. »I loot the body, giving the sword to the fighter but hide the coins from her and my other companions!« Pathfinder is a coopetative game, and since you've talked to the other players beforehand they know that you're not actually being uncooperative. Your rogue is stealing those coins because you think it'll be interesting story and eventually the coins will wind their way into the party stash one way or another, so everyone follows Wealth by level and whatnot.
And then you roll Sleight of hand vs. Perception to find out if the theft is discovered right away or if you'll get to take that awesome scene where the PCs (but not their players) argue later.
This is how you make interesting PCs who has conflicts with other PCs in games like Apocalypse World. Most Pathfinder players, I dare guess, aren't used to this play style, but I have hopes the can learn =)
Yes, that works. And if some player object loudly OOC, then stop and discuss. Then have a vote.
But if this leads to any PvP issue, then stop it right now.
We had one rogue who was always advance looting, highly valuable stuff. This hurts the party. People were upset. Hurt feelings.
We had a another rogue named Jade who told the players OOC that her PC loved and couldnt resist green gems. Had to pocket them.
everyone thought that was cool and went along with it.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
I am guessing that they had no formal charter at all, and that the player of the rogue got into his head the idea "I am a rogue and so I should steal stuff whenever I can" with no consideration of other factors.
It could be as innocent as a mistake I somebody make at a football camp for youngsters. The coach had the players get into position as he assigned positions. The one he called "center" assumed the proper position behind the football, as did the two "guards" on either side of him. But when the next player was told to assume the "tackle" position, he lined up facing the center head-on instead of beside one of the guards facing the same direction.
if loot is gained in solo play the loot belongs to the person who looted it the rest of the party has no right to it and the person who looted it can hand it out to the rest of the party how they see fit if at all.
same thing goes for boss loot if you miss a boss fight you have no right to the loot gained from said boss and while the rest of the group may give you some of the loot they are under no obligation to do so.
lets say a character goes out and manages to find a book of +3 wisdom all by themselves, the book is theirs if they want to give it to another party member they can do so if they want to but they dont have to even if it would suit another party member better than themselves.
same situation with the rogue in this situation, he was solo he found loot he looted kept some of the loot for himself and shared the rest of HIS loot with the party in the form of a master work sword he didnt need to share the sword with the party but he did anyway
Lady-J wrote: if loot is gained in solo play the loot belongs to the person who looted it the rest of the party has no right to it and the person who looted it can hand it out to the rest of the party how they see fit if at all.
same thing goes for boss loot if you miss a boss fight you have no right to the loot gained from said boss and while the rest of the group may give you some of the loot they are under no obligation to do so.
lets say a character goes out and manages to find a book of +3 wisdom all by themselves, the book is theirs if they want to give it to another party member they can do so if they want to but they dont have to even if it would suit another party member better than themselves.
same situation with the rogue in this situation, he was solo he found loot he looted kept some of the loot for himself and shared the rest of HIS loot with the party in the form of a master work sword he didnt need to share the sword with the party but he did anyway
That's your (probably informal) game contract.
Don't assume it's everybody's.
I've rarely played under anything like that. Normally we share gear and loot far more than most posters around here seem to.
The real problems come in when someone's playing under a different assumed contract than the rest of the group.
Lady-J wrote: if loot is gained in solo play the loot belongs to the person who looted it the rest of the party has no right to it and the person who looted it can hand it out to the rest of the party how they see fit if at all.
same thing goes for boss loot if you miss a boss fight you have no right to the loot gained from said boss and while the rest of the group may give you some of the loot they are under no obligation to do so.
lets say a character goes out and manages to find a book of +3 wisdom all by themselves, the book is theirs if they want to give it to another party member they can do so if they want to but they dont have to even if it would suit another party member better than themselves.
same situation with the rogue in this situation, he was solo he found loot he looted kept some of the loot for himself and shared the rest of HIS loot with the party in the form of a master work sword he didnt need to share the sword with the party but he did anyway
Slight problem with this. The Rogue was not solo. They were scouting ahead for the rest of the party. "Currently alone" and "working solo" are two very different things. If you're doing something for the party you're not solo. Especially not if the rest of the party is close enough to @#$%ing see you.
Under that logic we get situations like "I get all the boss loot! He's more than 10 feet away from everyone else so clearly I killed him solo!". Feel free to replace "10 feet away" with "turned invisible and only I can see him", "put up a wall between the party members so only the people on this side get loot", or "did all the damage (because the rest of the party dazed/stunned/otherwise debuffed the boss)".
Lady-J wrote:
same situation with the rogue in this situation
If the rogue has every right to keep the loot to himself then the party has every right to kick his greedy ass out or worse too.
Or more to the point, not back up the rogue. That way they can go in, finish the monsters and have one extra corpse to loot. A party relies on each other, in and out of combat.
Even in town, solo thieven can drag the party into it. In most parties at our tables, the rogue can expect the party to step in to keep a bunch of toughs from killing said rogue, without checking whether he was at fault.
All this falls apart when abused.
My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Slight problem with this. The Rogue was not solo. They were scouting ahead for the rest of the party. "Currently alone" and "working solo" are two very different things. If you're doing something for the party you're not solo. Especially not if the rest of the party is close enough to @#$%ing see you.
Under that logic we get situations like "I get all the boss loot! He's more than 10 feet away from everyone else so clearly I killed him solo!". Feel free to replace "10 feet away" with "turned invisible and only I can see him", "put up a wall between the party members so only the people on this side get loot", or "did all the damage (because the rest of the party dazed/stunned/otherwise debuffed the boss)".
if the party can see you, you are not scouting as scouting means your like 300 feet away minimum sneaking arround. if they wernt that far then we have miss information from the original poster from him saying the rogue was scouting.scouting is also usually a working alone thing with some rare ocations you have multiple stealthy people were you can have a team of two scouting in which case the loot should be split in half.
if the party is that great of distance away 300feet+ and your the only one doing anything to the boss and you manage to kill said boss all by yourself then yes you should get all the loot from the boss and if your the only one activly doing anything to the boss because the rest of the party chooses not to do anything they dont desurve any loot, if they are atempting to help out but just cant seem to beable to do anything do to bad luck on their part(low rolls on their end, high rolls on the enemies part) they should still get a cut of the loot. if the party comes across a boss fight but jimmy the sorcerer is buisy looking at market goods 2 districts over and the party kills the boss jimmy is SooL and has no right to the loot, the party can however give him some of the loot if they so choose.
your over exaguration of the situation belittles the point you are trying to make
Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Slight problem with this. The Rogue was not solo. They were scouting ahead for the rest of the party. "Currently alone" and "working solo" are two very different things. If you're doing something for the party you're not solo. Especially not if the rest of the party is close enough to @#$%ing see you.
Under that logic we get situations like "I get all the boss loot! He's more than 10 feet away from everyone else so clearly I killed him solo!". Feel free to replace "10 feet away" with "turned invisible and only I can see him", "put up a wall between the party members so only the people on this side get loot", or "did all the damage (because the rest of the party dazed/stunned/otherwise debuffed the boss)".
if the party can see you, you are not scouting as scouting means your like 300 feet away minimum sneaking arround. if they wernt that far then we have miss information from the original poster from him saying the rogue was scouting.scouting is also usually a working alone thing with some rare ocations you have multiple stealthy people were you can have a team of two scouting in which case the loot should be split in half.
if the party is that great of distance away 300feet+ and your the only one doing anything to the boss and you manage to kill said boss all by yourself then yes you should get all the loot from the boss and if your the only one activly doing anything to the boss because the rest of the party chooses not to do anything they dont desurve any loot, if they are atempting to help out but just cant seem to beable to do anything do to bad luck on their part(low rolls on their end, high rolls on the enemies part) they should still get a cut of the loot. if the party comes across a boss fight but jimmy the sorcerer is buisy looking at market goods 2 districts over and the party kills the boss jimmy is SooL and has no right to the loot, the party can however give him some of the loot if they so choose.
your over exaguration of the situation belittles the... You're being very emphatic about how other people should play their games.
Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members.
Now that was a telling statement Lady J.
Quote wrote: the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members I rather doubt that a lot of people agree that that loot was ever HIS. It was party loot. I get that you can't agree with this. Our worst player never could either. He cannot find a game now. He came very close to getting beat up in the real world.
I recognize this is an issue for you, you should recognize that this is as much of an issue to others.
_Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members. it is not he didnt go into their bags and steal items from their inventory, that is what stealing from a party member is, if its not on their character sheet it isnt theirs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members. it is not he didnt go into their bags and steal items from their inventory, that is what stealing from a party member is, if its not on their character sheet it isnt theirs. That simply is not true for the majority of people that play the game. Loot earned during the adventure is party treasure. If someone steals it for themselves, they are stealing from the rest of the party.
_Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members. it is not he didnt go into their bags and steal items from their inventory, that is what stealing from a party member is, if its not on their character sheet it isnt theirs. That simply is not true for the majority of people that play the game. Loot earned during the adventure is party treasure. If someone steals it for themselves, they are stealing from the rest of the party. loot is treasure that is devided amoung all parties present at the time of looting if the party isnt there you dont need to split it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: loot is treasure that is devided amoung all parties present at the time of looting if the party isnt there you dont need to split it. As I said, the majority of people who play the game will disagree with you.
Lady-J wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members. it is not he didnt go into their bags and steal items from their inventory, that is what stealing from a party member is, if its not on their character sheet it isnt theirs. In the unlikely event that the other players agree, what are the likely responses?
The cleric won't heal anyone until all the loot is picked up.
The wizard won't share the results of his detect magic spells.
The back-rank PCs can start looting before the battle ends.
If the barbarian wants a full share of treasure, he needs to kill the rogue.
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Slight problem with this. The Rogue was not solo. They were scouting ahead for the rest of the party. "Currently alone" and "working solo" are two very different things. If you're doing something for the party you're not solo. Especially not if the rest of the party is close enough to @#$%ing see you.
...
if the party can see you, you are not scouting as scouting means your like 300 feet away minimum sneaking arround. if they wernt that far then we have miss information from the original poster from him saying the rogue was scouting.scouting is also usually a working alone thing with some rare ocations you have multiple stealthy people were you can have a team of two scouting in which case the loot should be split in half.
if the party is that great of distance away 300feet+ and your the only one doing anything to the boss and you manage to kill said boss all by yourself then yes you should get all the loot from the boss and if your the only one activly doing anything to the boss because the rest of the party chooses not to do anything they dont desurve any loot, if they are atempting to help out but just cant seem to beable to do anything do to bad luck on their part(low rolls on their end, high rolls on the enemies part) they should still get a cut of the loot. if the party comes across a boss fight but jimmy the sorcerer is buisy looking at market goods 2 districts over and the party kills the boss jimmy is SooL and has no right to the loot, the party can however give him some of the loot if they so choose.
your over exaguration of the situation belittles the point you are trying to make Straight from the OP's mouth (bolding mine). Spamd16 wrote: First time GM, so I'm looking for a little guidance. My group saw a body laying on the ground near a lake. So the rogue sneaked ahead to check it out. It happened to be dead grave robber. As the group approached, the rogue searched the body and found a masterwork shortsword and a bunch of gold coin. He told the group about the shortsword, but not the gold. He is not trained in slight of hand, But I feel he should roll to try and hide the gold before the group sees it... Suggestions? So you're right, the OP didn't mention scouting, just an activity that looks, sounds, and acts an awful lot like it ("sneaking ahead to check things out"). So taking out the "scouting" part the Rogue ran ahead of the rest of the party to reach the body first and then proceeded to steal the loot. In full view of the rest of the party, as they can see the body. The Rogue then lied to the rest of the party about what loot the body had. The Rogue was not alone in the slightest. If they'd been attacked the entire party could (and probably would) have responded. By your logic they should have let the Rogue fight that encounter alone as the Rogue was "solo".
The rest is 100% your personal preference (and one obviously not shared by everyone). When I scout I try to stay within 60-100 feet of the party at all times (sometimes much less). Because all it takes is one bad roll (or monsters that ignore Stealth completely) and the scout will have to solo an encounter meant for the party. If the party is 300 feet away the scout is probably going to die. Therefore my definition of scouting is not 300 feet away. Ditto dividing loot. Personally, if the party goes to a dungeon together then I consider everything they get "party loot", split evenly between the entire party. It's not a "first come, first served" situation. Especially not if they expect the rest of the party to back them up if they get attacked. You can absolutely run that kind of game but as is evidenced in this thread, not everyone does (and those people tend to consider that kind of behavior a massive betrayal). Personally, I think that kind of behavior is parasitic. Use the party to get safely to the dungeon, use them if the enemy is too hard, ignore them and hoard the loot if you think you can get away with it. Why would anyone keep someone like that around? Just fire their @#$ and get a scout who won't leech off of you.
whew wrote: Lady-J wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: Mokshai wrote: My DM in one of my FTF games allowed the rogue to steal like this. It ultimatly gimped the party as he stole a wand of ccw that the cleric had just had made.
This along with a time limit caused a tpk when the cleric ran out of the ability to heal after fights, and the rogue never did say he had it.
Although, we as players knew he had it, we played as if we did not.
So allowing the character to steal from the party in this way, ultimately messed up the party.
the discution is about a rogue who looted a corpse and (only) gave the party some of his loot, he did not steal from party members That is stealing from party members. it is not he didnt go into their bags and steal items from their inventory, that is what stealing from a party member is, if its not on their character sheet it isnt theirs. In the unlikely event that the other players agree, what are the likely responses?
The cleric won't heal anyone until all the loot is picked up.
The wizard won't share the results of his detect magic spells.
The back-rank PCs can start looting before the battle ends.
If the barbarian wants a full share of treasure, he needs to kill the rogue.
no they split the loot with every one present, if a person is missing cuz they a)cant make it to the sesion or b)they are off doing some other stuff away from the party they dont get a share of the loot. the rogue was the only one present when the looting ocured so the loot is all his no one helped kill the dude(grant it he didnt kill the dude either) and no one helped him find the loot so they cannot stake a claim to it. when loot is found all partisipants of finding said loot gets an euqal claim to said loot weather it be loot gained from combat or finding a well hidden treasure, in this instance the rogue was the sole partisipant in finding the loot, then all partisipants get an equal share of the loot, loot/1 = loot rogue gained loot.
Lady-J wrote: the rogue was the only one present when the looting ocured so the loot is all his no one helped kill the dude(grant it he didnt kill the dude either) and no one helped him find the loot so they cannot stake a claim to it. This is demonstrably wrong in almost all respects. Did you bother to read the OP?
Bob Bob Bob wrote: The rest is 100% your personal preference (and one obviously not shared by everyone). When I scout I try to stay within 60-100 feet of the party at all times (sometimes much less). Because all it takes is one bad roll (or monsters that ignore Stealth completely) and the scout will have to solo an encounter meant for the party. If the party is 300 feet away the scout is probably going to die. Therefore my definition of scouting is not 300 feet away. Ditto dividing loot. Personally, if the party goes to a dungeon together then I consider everything they get "party loot", split evenly between the entire party. It's not a "first come, first served" situation. Especially not if they expect the rest of the party to back them up if they get attacked. You can absolutely run that kind of game but as is evidenced in this thread, not everyone does (and those people tend to consider that kind of behavior a massive betrayal). Personally, I think that kind of behavior is parasitic. Use the party to get safely to the dungeon, use them if the enemy is too hard, ignore them and hoard the loot if you think you can get away with it. Why would anyone keep someone like that around? Just fire their @#$ and get a scout who won't leech off of you.
if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure.
if a fighter manages to solo a boss all by himself and no one else is arround the bosses loot is his, his skills got the treasure.
if a sorcerer can talk their way into a great deal that secures them massive ammounts of wealth with no other party members arround said wealth is theirs, their skills earned them that treasure.
weather or not they share their well earned goods is up to them some will, some won't, if they share the party could end up happy if they dont the party cant say s*++ cuz they didnt do anything to help acuire those spoils. the only leeches and parasites would the the party members who feel like they deserve said loot when they themselves did nothing.
_Ozy_ wrote: Lady-J wrote: the rogue was the only one present when the looting ocured so the loot is all his no one helped kill the dude(grant it he didnt kill the dude either) and no one helped him find the loot so they cannot stake a claim to it. This is demonstrably wrong in almost all respects. Did you bother to read the OP? yes and the op was extreamly vague which is why we must try and create the most logical interpritation of said events as possible, them seeing the body from about 400 feet away seems like the 1st logical step, the rogue then goes out solo to check it out he then loots the body while the party aproches(moving from 400 feet away to the location of the body)the party then reaches the rogue and he tells them about the sword(witch is worth roughly 310 gold) and he doesnt tell them about the bag of "a bunch of gold" now they are probably level one based on the fact that the rogue isn't trained in slight of hand which usually only happends when you run out of skill points at level one but then you throw one point in at level 2 so "a bunch of gold" at level one is arround 10-20 gold peices which based on the size of a typacle coin pouch back then is about how much gold could fit in said coin pouch if its on the small to agerage size getting into 30-50 gold if its on the larger size still a pittence of wealth compared to the sword. until we get more data i feel that this is the fairest interpritation of the senario based on the information provided. if the coin gained is of the higher end the rogue could have thought lets just keep the coins and let them figure out what to do with the sword and if they sell it each of the lets say about 5 other people(theres always one or 2 more than the sugested party size) will devide it up into roughly 60 coins or 50 if the rogue wants some of the sword money.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady J,
I don't know why this is such an issue to you, it is abviously deep seated.
You will not move off your point, regardless of how many people explain how and why they disagree with you. Sorry, but we are never going to see it your way, and you are never going to see it our way.
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: The rest is 100% your personal preference (and one obviously not shared by everyone). When I scout I try to stay within 60-100 feet of the party at all times (sometimes much less). Because all it takes is one bad roll (or monsters that ignore Stealth completely) and the scout will have to solo an encounter meant for the party. If the party is 300 feet away the scout is probably going to die. Therefore my definition of scouting is not 300 feet away. Ditto dividing loot. Personally, if the party goes to a dungeon together then I consider everything they get "party loot", split evenly between the entire party. It's not a "first come, first served" situation. Especially not if they expect the rest of the party to back them up if they get attacked. You can absolutely run that kind of game but as is evidenced in this thread, not everyone does (and those people tend to consider that kind of behavior a massive betrayal). Personally, I think that kind of behavior is parasitic. Use the party to get safely to the dungeon, use them if the enemy is too hard, ignore them and hoard the loot if you think you can get away with it. Why would anyone keep someone like that around? Just fire their @#$ and get a scout who won't leech off of you.
if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure.
if a fighter manages to solo a boss all by himself and no one else is arround the bosses loot is his, his skills got the treasure.
if a sorcerer can talk their way into a great deal that secures them massive ammounts of wealth with no other party members arround said wealth is theirs, their skills earned them that treasure.
weather or not they share their well earned goods is up to them some will, some won't, if they share the party could end up happy if they dont the party cant say s*#* cuz they didnt do anything to help acuire those spoils. the only leeches and parasites would the the party members who feel like they deserve said loot when they themselves did nothing. To reiterate, "The rest is 100% your personal preference (and one obviously not shared by everyone)."
Again, I (and a few others in this thread) think that if a party takes a Rogue out with them to a dungeon and asks the Rogue to scout ahead, anything the Rogue finds is party loot. Their skills did get them that loot, but their skills are why they're in the party in the first place. That's why the party brought them along. It's certainly not for fighting. And that Rogue wouldn't have found anything if they hadn't been escorted to the dungeon by the rest of the party in the first place.
So the Fighter goes first, rolls a lucky crit with a battleaxe, instantly kills the boss. They get to keep the loot? Or is it only if the rest of the party can't see them that they get to keep everything? What if the boss casts Wall of Stone (or something similar) and the Fighter is the only one who can reach the boss to attack, do they keep all the loot regardless of who else damaged the boss? Do you divide the loot based on exactly what percentage everyone did to the boss? I really can't see any version of this that I'd ever use or be willing to play with.
If the Sorcerer makes a great deal in their downtime, sure, they keep that. If they go to a dungeon with their party and make some great deal (letting the bandits they're hunting escape, making a deal with the devil, whatever) then they owe the party their cut. The deal wasn't possible without the party, the party deserves their share. That's my opinion.
The party always has the option of kicking out any member they don't want. If the Rogue gets caught lying about taking loot and not sharing it with the party (and the party doesn't agree that they "deserve it"), the Rogue is lucky if they get to walk back home alone. I know several parties that would murder the #@$% out of them on the spot. It's absolutely allowed in a specific type of game ("mercenary" is the word I've heard used to describe it) but, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, not everyone plays that way. I don't think I ever have, in fact. How you think it should work is not the only way.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: So the Fighter goes first, rolls a lucky crit with a battleaxe, instantly kills the boss. They get to keep the loot? Or is it only if the rest of the party can't see them that they get to keep everything? What if the boss casts Wall of Stone (or something similar) and the Fighter is the only one who can reach the boss to attack, do they keep all the loot regardless of who else damaged the boss? Do you divide the loot based on exactly what percentage everyone did to the boss? I really can't see any version of this that I'd ever use or be willing to play with. if the fighter is with the party unless the party activly chooses to do nothing in the fight the fighter isnt in a 1v1 fight so your examples have no braring here
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
If the Sorcerer makes a great deal in their downtime, sure, they keep that. If they go to a dungeon with their party and make some great deal (letting the bandits they're hunting escape, making a deal with the devil, whatever) then they owe the party their cut. The deal wasn't possible without the party, the party deserves their share. That's my opinion.
again the party isnt present its none of their consern weather in down time or in a dungion unless the sorcerer is throwing them under the bus.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The party always has the option of kicking out any member they don't want. If the Rogue gets caught lying about taking loot and not sharing it with the party (and the party doesn't agree that they "deserve it"), the Rogue is lucky if they get to walk back home alone. I know several parties that would murder the #@$% out of them on the spot. It's absolutely allowed in a specific type of game ("mercenary" is the word I've heard used to describe it) but, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, not everyone plays that way. I don't think I ever have, in fact. How you think it should work is not the only way.
well good for them but one of these days they are going to try to kill some one the group disagrees with and they are all going to need to make new characters as the person they tryied to kill cuts them all down.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
There's literally nothing gained by sharing loot by your rules, Lady-J.
This is why I like using WBL in my games, so that the thief can indulge his taste for larceny without hurting the other PCs' wealth
IMO there is zero problem about this behaviour as long as the other players are ok with it (even if their PCs are not), which entails that the players must know about it beforehand.
Maybe they can come to an agreement like the other PCs finding from time to time that the thief stole from the party and giving him a beating to get their loot back
Of course if the players agree on the stealing part, any player purposefully trying to prevent the thief from doing it is using metagame to kill his friend's fun aka being a jerk. Very similar to trying to have the Paladin fall
What I just don't get is why should the other members of the party be OK with this from a RP point of view. This kind of behavior shows that the thief is not worth of being trusted.
Kileanna wrote: What I just don't get is why should the other members of the party be OK with this from a RP point of view. This kind of behavior shows that the thief is not worth of being trusted. As long as you're aware of it and he is useful, it can be tolerated
I think that a player who plays a rogue so he can pick to himself part of the party's loot is as wrong as playing a paladin so you can tell the other PCs how to behave or a barbarian who charges the enemies while other PCs are negotiating.
It might be logic that your character behaves like that but it gets old soon and it's not fun for anybody.
You can play a character who is a thief, who patronizes, who is always willing to start a fight, without having to mess with your own group.
It's not about WBL, it's about that kind of actions being often annoying and not adding anything to the game but discomfort for the other players.
Even when they say they are OK with it, this things, in my experience, end escalating and becoming conflicts between players.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure. If the party goes into a dungeon and defeats various monsters and there is a huge treasure hoard behind a secret door and no other treasure anywhere and the rogue is the first one to make the perception check to find it... that seems like a terrible way to distribute treasure.
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: So the Fighter goes first, rolls a lucky crit with a battleaxe, instantly kills the boss. They get to keep the loot? Or is it only if the rest of the party can't see them that they get to keep everything? What if the boss casts Wall of Stone (or something similar) and the Fighter is the only one who can reach the boss to attack, do they keep all the loot regardless of who else damaged the boss? Do you divide the loot based on exactly what percentage everyone did to the boss? I really can't see any version of this that I'd ever use or be willing to play with. if the fighter is with the party unless the party activly chooses to do nothing in the fight the fighter isnt in a 1v1 fight so your examples have no braring here
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
If the Sorcerer makes a great deal in their downtime, sure, they keep that. If they go to a dungeon with their party and make some great deal (letting the bandits they're hunting escape, making a deal with the devil, whatever) then they owe the party their cut. The deal wasn't possible without the party, the party deserves their share. That's my opinion.
again the party isnt present its none of their consern weather in down time or in a dungion unless the sorcerer is throwing them under the bus.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The party always has the option of kicking out any member they don't want. If the Rogue gets caught lying about taking loot and not sharing it with the party (and the party doesn't agree that they "deserve it"), the Rogue is lucky if they get to walk back home alone. I know several parties that would murder the #@$% out of them on the spot. It's absolutely allowed in a specific type of game ("mercenary" is the word I've heard used to describe it) but, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, not everyone plays that way. I don't think I ever have, in fact. How you think it should work is not the only way.
well good for them but one of these days they are going to try to kill some one the group disagrees with and they are all going to need to make new characters as the person they tryied to kill cuts them all down. I literally cannot make this bigger or bolder. "The rest is 100% your personal preference (and one obviously not shared by everyone)."
The Fighter in my example is fighting 1v1 in the Wall of Stone example. The rest of the party is behind the wall. Does the fact that the rest of the party can't contribute mean that they don't get any loot? What if the rest of the party gets paralyzed or something (so they can't take any actions)? Under what circumstances does the Fighter get to claim all of loot?
Again, your opinion is that the Sorcerer can do whatever they want as long as the rest of the party doesn't know about it. Other people think differently. Again, my opinion is that if the "great deal" wasn't possible without the party (in a location the whole party went to together, for example), the party deserves a cut. Neither is wrong. Both are a personal preference. One the group needs to agree to as a whole group, as this is the kind of stuff groups break up over.
...what? All I can read this as is "but what if that one character can kill the rest of party together" and that's not the point. The point is that this kind of behavior may lead to other characters trying to kill the character, which is (generally) bad. Even the best case is that one character is kicked out of the party (the worst is death) and needs to make a new character. Regardless of the outcome at least one player is going to lose a character and be disgruntled (unless everyone agreed to and was expecting this ahead of time). I'm not sure what your ideal scenario for one party member killing all the rest is but in my games that gets you uninvited from the group because nobody wants to play with you. The best case I can come up with is grudge characters made just to kill the offending character but that's less of a best case and more of a "this is the only way the game will continue". Other games may operate differently (some definitely do) and in certain games this might be fine. In my game it's going to end with losing a player, which is a pretty heavy loss.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matthew Downie wrote: Lady-J wrote: if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure. If the party goes into a dungeon and defeats various monsters and there is a huge treasure hoard behind a secret door and no other treasure anywhere and the rogue is the first one to make the perception check to find it... that seems like a terrible way to distribute treasure. As a GM, if I allow my players to keep the rewards they get while going solo I am encouraging them to go by their own instead of playing as a team. That's why I like them to share their part of the loot with the other PCs.
If a player misses a session it's a different thing.
Also, it's different if you are giving a character a personal quest to reward that specific PC with someting special to him. But if you are doing that, each PC should have his personal quest/reward too.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: The Fighter in my example is fighting 1v1 in the Wall of Stone example. The rest of the party is behind the wall. Does the fact that the rest of the party can't contribute mean that they don't get any loot? What if the rest of the party gets paralyzed or something (so they can't take any actions)? Under what circumstances does the Fighter get to claim all of loot? no they are not your examples are not true 1v1 fights, a true 1v1 fight is when either a) the party is with you but chooses not to intervine in the fight(getting walled off or paralized usually isnt a choise) or b) the party is not with the fighter. your two examples are still an example of a group fight
Bob Bob Bob wrote: ...what? All I can read this as is "but what if that one character can kill the rest of party together" and that's not the point. The point is that this kind of behavior may lead to other characters trying to kill the character, which is (generally) bad. Even the best case is that one character is kicked out of the party (the worst is death) and needs to make a new character. Regardless of the outcome at least one player is going to lose a character and be disgruntled (unless everyone agreed to and was expecting this ahead of time). I'm not sure what your ideal scenario for one party member killing all the rest is but in my games that gets you uninvited from the group because nobody wants to play with you. The best case I can come up with is grudge characters made just to kill the offending character but that's less of a best case and more of a "this is the only way the game will continue". Other games may operate differently (some definitely do) and in certain games this might be fine. In my game it's going to end with losing a player, which is a pretty heavy loss. what im saying is your disgruntled players who have falsely preceaved a betrayal and go to kill a party member will at one time or another try to kill off some one who is capable of killing the entire party why should they be the ones to get kicked out their character was only defending themselves from an ACTUAL betrayal.
Matthew Downie wrote: Lady-J wrote: if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure. If the party goes into a dungeon and defeats various monsters and there is a huge treasure hoard behind a secret door and no other treasure anywhere and the rogue is the first one to make the perception check to find it... that seems like a terrible way to distribute treasure. note how i said by themselves theres no party in this equation the party is in town or something and the rogue goes off and finds some secret tresure that treasure is theirs and they dont have to share if they dont want to
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Why is the rogue going solo?
Lady-J wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Lady-J wrote: if a rogue finds a secret door by themselves and theres treaure inside the treasure is theirs, their skills found the treasure. If the party goes into a dungeon and defeats various monsters and there is a huge treasure hoard behind a secret door and no other treasure anywhere and the rogue is the first one to make the perception check to find it... that seems like a terrible way to distribute treasure. note how i said by themselves theres no party in this equation the party is in town or something and the rogue goes off and finds some secret tresure that treasure is theirs and they dont have to share if they dont want to Or you know, ahead of the party checking out a body that the entire group saw before the rogue went to search it. Since that's the original scenario.
Sure, if the GM is running solo adventures while the rest of the group is doing downtime stuff, that's usually handled differently.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I have to add that to me there are two different reasons for a group member to go solo:
1) The GM gave that PC a solo adventure on purpose or the other PCs asked him to go solo or decided to split the party. Nothing wrong with that.
2) That the PC has decided to go solo without the consent/knowledge of the party to try to get some profit. As a GM I usually try to avoid that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: ...what? All I can read this as is "but what if that one character can kill the rest of party together" and that's not the point. The point is that this kind of behavior may lead to other characters trying to kill the character, which is (generally) bad. Even the best case is that one character is kicked out of the party (the worst is death) and needs to make a new character. Regardless of the outcome at least one player is going to lose a character and be disgruntled (unless everyone agreed to and was expecting this ahead of time). I'm not sure what your ideal scenario for one party member killing all the rest is but in my games that gets you uninvited from the group because nobody wants to play with you. The best case I can come up with is grudge characters made just to kill the offending character but that's less of a best case and more of a "this is the only way the game will continue". Other games may operate differently (some definitely do) and in certain games this might be fine. In my game it's going to end with losing a player, which is a pretty heavy loss. what im saying is your disgruntled players who have falsely preceaved a betrayal and go to kill a party member will at one time or another try to kill off some one who is capable of killing the entire party why should they be the ones to get kicked out their character was only defending themselves from an ACTUAL betrayal. Problem 1: They did not "falsely" perceive a betrayal. Either there was a misunderstanding (and it can be cleared up) or they were betrayed. Whether the perpetrator feels it's a betrayal is irrelevant (most don't), if the other side feels it is then it is. That's why you work this out ahead of time with the group, so everyone's expectations are on the same page. If you think you have an open relationship and your significant other thinks you're monogamous, it's still cheating.
Problem 2: One character who can take on all the rest of the party is unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. My scenario actually covered this (starting at the bolded part) but it's a rare enough scenario that we really don't need to focus on it. Honestly, the other party members killing the offender is probably just as rare (just kicking them out is far more likely). If, however, the character was built to kill the party (perhaps after the last character got kicked out/killed) then the simple act of making the character is a betrayal at the player level.
Problem 3: Games aren't necessarily a democracy but they tend to work that way. If one player is being disruptive, regardless of the circumstances, that player is going to be the one to go. If one player's character kills the rest of the party (and the rest of the players are angry about that) then that one player gets to go. Whether they were "right" or not doesn't matter.
You're focusing on one very specific edge case (that you're countering with an even more edge case) to the exclusion of several other reasonable scenarios. What happens if the Rogue gets caught stealing and the party says either hand over the loot (and never do that again) or get out? Do they kill the party or does the player roll up a new character? Or play the same way as everyone else in the group, though you've demonstrated an extreme resistance to that option. If the party catches the Rogue stealing again can they just kick them out with no discussion? Cut off a hand (or whatever the punishment was)? Will the Rogue attempt to murder the rest of the party for this? Can the party include a clause that says "Will not go off on their own, take loot, and hide it from the party" for the next party member to replace the Rogue?
Lady-J wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: The Fighter in my example is fighting 1v1 in the Wall of Stone example. The rest of the party is behind the wall. Does the fact that the rest of the party can't contribute mean that they don't get any loot? What if the rest of the party gets paralyzed or something (so they can't take any actions)? Under what circumstances does the Fighter get to claim all of loot? no they are not your examples are not true 1v1 fights, a true 1v1 fight is when either a) the party is with you but chooses not to intervine in the fight(getting walled off or paralized usually isnt a choise) or b) the party is not with the fighter. your two examples are still an example of a group fight You say that neither of the fights are 1v1 but you don't say why. The Wall of Stone example could literally be "Boss goes first, casts Wall of Stone, rest of party never gets past wall" which is about as 1v1 a fight as you can get. If the rest of the party is utterly incapable of affecting the fight but still gets a full share of the loot then all that matters is that they're willing to help the Fighter. I'm pretty sure the rest of the party is willing to help the Rogue get more loot, by your logic that means the party should always get a share of anything the Rogue finds. They would have helped if they could have. Whether they were anywhere nearby (Fighter example could be Plane Shift or something similar) or even capable of helping is apparently irrelevant according to you.
The Raven Black wrote: Kileanna wrote: What I just don't get is why should the other members of the party be OK with this from a RP point of view. This kind of behavior shows that the thief is not worth of being trusted. As long as you're aware of it and he is useful, it can be tolerated except you never know when he'll pocket something that could be critical to the rest of the party, when he has no use for it but to collect/sell. Unless the guy is kept under constant surveillance, his untrustworthiness makes him a liability more than an asset.
|
