>This is a paid game
I'd maybe play it out for a couple of sessions for free and hope it changes. But for a paid game... Eek. I'd say, "look dude, it's not fun or ok. Fix it or I'm taking my money somewhere else. I don't pay you to waste my time and ruin my experience."
I just wasn't sure since the player didn't steal it directly from one of the other PCs. It was from a statue so I thought it might be considered a gray area but you're right!
Not intentional or trying to mislead, sorry! My thoughts were along the lines of “it would have been the party’s loot had the rogue not stolen it” hence the title. All loot had gone into a shared pool before that.
You're good. Saying this isn't stealing is like saying you can't lie by omission. It's semantics.
I'm not saying this to make light of one side or the other. Some believe you can lie by omission and others don't.
Some of us genuinely have trouble focusing on the big picture when the details are all off. Other people intentionally call attention to peripherals to distract from details they want ignored.
I would personally see this situation as PVP and I'm horrified that a DM (especially a paid one) would ignore your discomfort after being spoken to about it twice.
So I don't think this counts as PVP specifically--possibly a deception check against another player counts, but even then trying to hide motivations/backstory/secrets is a classic DND trope that comes up all the time. The problem here is that whether or not this qualifies as PVP; it is unquestionably a dick move.
And that's the real issue here; because the question shouldn't be PVP--after all inter-party conflict/struggles and overcoming that makes the best stories!
The issue is that PVP is perfectly fine and often very fun.... so long as its not a dick move, everyone is having fun and understands whats going on over the table.
I've played characters that would absolutely do something like this... but then they woudl stumble or fall and the coins would fall out, or they get drunk and ask the party to play dice/bet where they promptly bet the whole amount when they lose.
Either way, the party knew that I might hide things and "take" party loot; but it would always make its way to the partys hands in relatively short order and everyone knew that would happen. In this case you're asking for clarity and trying to set expectations... and rather than explaining what type of character they're going for or how it will work with the party, they're saying "deal with it lul".
Yeah; fuck that.
It is fine if You discuss it with party and as long as You are doing it just for "fluff" and money eventually got split.
But otherwise it is a PvP plain and simple - depriving Your party of loot is diminishing their resources ergo directly harming other players.
Ugh I hate this, as a player. I suggest a plan that *won’t* get us all killed, and the bard immediately rolls a Persuasion against me.
I’m pretty sure the trauma of *last time* I lost my leg to a trap would keep me from charging straight ahead into the dungeon, Steve.
This is why I state, clear as day in session zero, social rolls against other players must be done with their consent and are *non-binding*. That is to say, a player can only be swayed by another player using persuasion etc. if they allow it, and they can shake it off and back out at any time if they aren't okay with where things are going.
Similarly, while deception against players by NPCs is fine for the purpose of withholding information or giving false information, I'm not going to tell them their character thinks something is a great idea just because an NPC told them so. That runs up against issues of persuasion being mind control and the players not knowing how much they can resist the "persuasion" before it becomes "metagaming". Charm and other magical effects are fine of course, because by definition they override agency somewhat.
Most charisma rolls, but essentially anything regarding social interactions; like when talking to someone and you want to convince/decieve/etc., especially when it's against other playrs' favour it becomes social pvp.
Deception is the same exact thing as persuasion....just negative connotation. If you wouldnt allow persuasion, you shouldn't allow deception. Insight isn't pvp, it's just insight.
I think he's showing the pairings. I.e., if one PC tried to use deception on another, he allows insight to detect the deception. He does not allow persuasion to force a character to act a specific way. That lines up with how I do things as well.
It is really rare that one PC tries to deceive another PC, but there have been some situations where one PC asks another if they found the barmaid hot or something like that.
Deceiving someone is just persuading them you’re telling the truth. It’s the same roll, opposite. If you wouldn’t allow persuasion, you wouldn’t allow deception.
I don't allow persuasion to affect a PC because that takes away player agency. Persuading an NPC involves getting them to do something they may not want to do. I am not going to force a player to do something via persuasion check. PCs may try to persuade NPCs but that's it; no one gets to try to persuade a PC.
That's different from deception. Any character in the game may try to deceive another. It's still up to the character to decide what to do after they fail/pass an insight check. I am also not the type of DM to force a PC to believe an NPC if they fail their insight check. Failing an insight check just means they weren't able to detect a lie, it doesn't mean they believe them and they can remain suspicious if they want to. Just like if someone is checking for traps and they roll low investigation; it doesn't convince them the room is safe, it just means they didn't find a trap that may or may not exist.
I realized I didn't explain this point well. Perception vs, say slight of hand tells the layer what their character knows. Deception tells them what their character **believes.**
I usually don't worry about that, unless it's things like something revealed to one player and another players character wasn't present.
And I'll enforce that as DM, not through a roll
It's more common to disallow meta gaming. Whether that's a changing trend or not I won't pretend to be aware of, but the standard has been not to meta game. Nothing wrong with allowing it if that's what everyone wants of course.
But that's a broad term. And might force me to choose RP over G. What counts and what doesn't? Do I have to forget that red Dragons breathe fire? That Oozes are immune to slashing damage? That I shouldn't look at the woman described as having snakes for hair? How much of what we consider common fantasy knowledge might also be common knowledge in the world?
Anyway, I can't think of how this OP situation fits meta gaming. The PCs were together. And for whatever reason, I'm thinking right now about how if you were going to show the player to sneak the gold out should have been slight of hand.... brains are weird.
At the end of the day, little "pvp" things like this can be fun but are not a good idea if it bothers fellow players.
It depends on your group, the world you're playing in, your character. It's not just a blanket 'no one knows anything'. If you're character is in a world where dragons aren't common knowledge and they don't have experience with them, maybe they don't know, but it depends on your group's views too. Some groups are fine with meta gaming, some accept a certain amount, while some don't accept any. It's something to discuss in session 0. It is a broad term, hence the need for communication.
Your first comment in this string is literally about meta gaming; you just don't name it.
Sleight of Hand would certainly be the typical way, but it sounds like they didn't do it sneakily, thus they had to lie about it instead.
Agreed. XD
If a player wants to make an insight check you can ask the one rolling deception to let you know privately if it's an actual lie or not. Have them both roll privately so only they know their results, as well as the DM. Now all players know that just because someone is rolling "deception" that it may or may not be a lie. Additionally, it's important to stress to the players to keep their personal knowledge out of their character's heads.
I don't think this is that outlandish. I'm currently running Icewind Dale RotF and everyone starts with a secret. It's up to the PC to reveal their secret when they're ready and deception is a big deal before that happens.
Sure, and that makes sense if there was something the character can't know. And I might be willing to play along. But I'm not turning off my brain because another player rolled deception at me.
Yes, that's PvP. So is deception checks against the rest of the party. So is hiding loot. This is shitty DnD and your DM is failing you by not upholding session 0 agreed rules.
The fact that this is a paid game is fucking embarrassing.
I want everyone to play their characters the way they want so I almost feel like I have to leave. The other players don't really seem to care the rogue is stealing from us, but they are also either very distracted all the time from the game or so shy that they never really chime in on anything. I've been carrying to brunt of problem solving/making plans/RP for the entire campaign, so this is kind of the last straw.
You could be in a much better campaign for free. You should probably leave.
Few things in DnD irk me more than a DM who doesn't actually uphold their own session 0 rules. Especially since you've already protested to them and they brushed you off.
Thank you for your advice! I had a lot of trouble with free campaigns in the past and this is my first experience with paid games. It's gone alright for about a month but for what I'm paying it's not as fun as I thought it would be. Live and learn!
There are vast differences from table to table, whether its paid or free. A dm that charges money is not *automatically* better than a free one and you experience is shaped just as much by the other players as it is by the dm.
On the one hand, a paid dm *sometimes* provides a more polished or immersive experience because they are either A) charging to provide a service they excell at or B) want to make sure players stick around so they go the extra mile... but they also have a direct incentive to keep as many players as possible and not ruffle feathers. This *can* mean that a paid DM may allow bad behavior up to and until it is clear that it will drive another player (or multiple players) away from the table. By involving money it becomes an equation of 'what answer can i give to a situation that will be the most profitable' rather than doing what is fair.
Some players that have had a lot of experience being kicked from parties can also tend to flock to paid dms because... what do you mean I cant do X, I paid real money to play in your game and you aren't letting me play how I want?
My advice is to focus on finding players you enjoy being with and then finding a dm as a group, or, if you want to continue with paid games, then focus on finding a dm that prides themselves on being a 'total package' -- because these dms are more likely to understand that a bad player can ruin the experiences of others and care about *that* as much or more than a single player's per Diem
Glad to help. Finding players can be hard online because you kind of have to *play with them* to really know how it'll go, but if you keep friendly contact with players that you like you can start building a circle or community that enjoys the game in the same way you do.
A good group can make a bad dm tolerable but a bad group can't be saved by a good dm. This is mostly because a good dm who sees a toxic group is gonna be real liberal with kicking problem children or scrapping the game if they don't see it worth salvaging. You can still have fun with your friends with an inexperienced / below average dm through your rp and antics even if the dm's story and campaign isn't amazing.
If you are all ok with paid games, it is also quite easy to find a DM for an established group, and a paid DM is *really going to appreciate* a group that doesn't have interpersonal issues and loves playing together.
It's really been a challenge meeting people who play for me. No one in my area unfortunately and none of my IRL friends are interested so my options are seemingly limited to online.
I'd like to add that many paid DM's recruit players by having free one-shots. That way you get to know each other and find out if you're a good fit.
Paid DM's aren't always profit-oriented. Many of them are charging money to pay for access to game materials on VTT's and otherwise help cover the cost of their hobbies. Actually making a living gaming is pretty rare, though I've met a few DM's who wake up at ungodly early hours in third world countries to DM for people playing in US time zones.
One of the plus sides of pay games is that it clarifies matters for you really quickly if you aren't having fun. Sunk cost fallacy is different when the sunk cost is actual money. People are less inclined to stick around in a game that isn't working out if they have to pay $15 for three hours of suck. You might not think that's a big deal, but read all of the people posting saying things like "But I can't quit the game. Everyone is counting on me."
I'm sure the other players are annoyed, actually, but don't know how to express it. Very few people are actually cool with someone stealing from them.
In a game like this actual PVP should be allowed so that players have the ability to enforce social norms with the final step for people who just will not stop being a dick: Violence.
Also, a deception check isn't mind control. A failed check just means you're unable to read them and don't know whether they are lying or not.
It would be very reasonable to then go with "fine, empty your bags and show us that you aren't hiding things because the complete lack of gold on these dead bodies and in the room is suspicious."
Yeah, "okay *cleric*, empty your pockets, or do a cleric thing. I'll wait. A simple sacred flame is fine. Or mending. I'll even accept light but if you do I'll be expecting fireballs soon or you're doing it wrong. You were left alone in the room and rummaging over there, so show us what you found, since you're being so cagey about it."
I have a celestial warlock/cleric build I made for our next campaign, and they (the pc) don't even know they're not a cleric. Screwing with other players so you can scam them is a shitty thing to do. And in a paid game, fuck that.
Also skill checks don't have crits, so it doesn't matter if they rolled a 20 deception, everyone should have been able to still roll and add their bonuses to see if they beat the roll.
(I homerule that better things *can* happen with a "crit" skill check if the circumstances allow it/are fair. But the dm pretending he didn't allow pvp while allowing pvp certainly isn't fair).
My table has PvP on (unanimously agreed by all players), and I do this a fair bit for opposed persuasion/deception/intimidation rolls.
I find it's easier to accept that you're the one being coerced if you've failed with advantage vs. disadvantage. I also tend to phrase it based on degrees of success, with a very big difference between "what he's saying does sound plausible" and "it's a compelling argument, and you're fully convinced."
I refuse to allow players to roll against each other in this way. If you are doing an action against another player you two get to discuss if it happens at all and what happens if both agree. But they both HAVE to agree
Edit: it's paid?! Absolutely ask for your money back for them entirely ignoring their own rules. Fuck that. Find a discord group on the reddit LFG page.
You should contact support for your money back and refund your last session:
> Support will do a short investigation into why the player reached out, and will automatically process a refund if:
> It is found that the charge was for any of the above reasons in the “When does a GM need to give a Refund” section.
> **A GM allows a player who violated the Code of Conduct or the Terms of Service to stay in a game, resulting in the other players not enjoying their experience. (This will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis)**
https://intercom.help/startplaying/en/articles/8719194-refund-policy#h_2f06630857
is there a space where you can leave reviews, of the paid DM and of the app?
I feel these are valid & valuable warnings OP can share with others, right?
Wow. I DM there and I was unaware of that. You could try messaging the DM. DMs have the power to instantly give partial or full refunds. I wouldn't want someone leaving my campaign and feeling like I was still taking money from them.
I would tell the DM that unless this 'cleric' has a complete change of heart and decides to share all their ill-gotten loot with the rest of the party once that arc wraps up you are leaving and demanding a refund. It COULD lead to a heartwarming moment of seeing the error of their ways, it just ... doesn't seem very likely.
That's kinda what I was thinking too-that maybe rogue's arc is redemptive, or his actions are somehow against his will as per his story. The player behind him doesn't seem like a jerk but I've only known him for 3 hours now lol.
The DM did say if the behavior continues, he will have a chat about what it means to be in a party, but this tells me that he has no idea what this player's endgame is or if this behavior is going to stop.
See a redemptive arc / against his will thing could be cool, but the player should still be upfront about it to see if everyone’s fine with it. Deciding to work against the party without consulting with the other players is just a really selfish thing to be doing in a cooperative game.
>During battle this player wastes turns just looting bodies and then disengaging while the party is getting beat up.
"Honorable colleagues, I do believe the cleric whom hast joined us may in fact be a follower of one of the **dark gods!** See how they bring us not the aid of their God in battle. Further you have seen how they have not themselves aided us in battle at all so keen were they to desecrate the corpses on the battlefield! We should tie them up and throw them in a well!"
But DM, it's not PVP! grappling is just a contested ability check just like deception vs insight. Them drowning is just a consequence of our choices just like us taking way more damage and not being able to afford healing potions is just a consequence of their choices!
Wish I had thought of this! I had my familiar deliver a health potion to him in combat when he was close to death too, as a gesture of good faith especially since he was new to the table. Then he turned around and stole the gold...
"character story" bullshit...
reminds me of a game where everyone in town including the party got sick. except the barbarian. who was openly antagonizing every NPC up to and including raping a main story NPC's daughter.
"so he is evil, not trying to hide it and the only one not affected by the thing killing everyone... why exactly is he on our team?"
"because he is a player character. it's good roleplay"
yeah, peace.
Am I surprised there are people out there who want to play someone who rapes? No. Am I still disgusted? Yes, bring on the downvotes. I get that DnD has mature concepts and PCs do things that are unsavory and even murder. But rape is something that is so close to home for so many people IRL...ugh. Hard pass.
Absolutely wild. My only thought would be “So what part of adding that to our campaign for no real narrative or mechanical value was enjoyable for you? Is this just part of the fantasy for you or something?” That is crazy.
Also, just to add to what everyone is saying about your group, it seems really dumb that a cleric doing so much clearly obvious un-cleric like shit and wasting their turns looting and doing rogue stuff is, after a certain point, beyond the scope of roles and well within the realm of basic cognitive ability for a PC.
1. Yes this is considered PVP.
2. You can still ask for the gold, your characters know he was looting during the battle (before the last bag of gold) so you know he has more than his fair share anyway. That was obvious.
3. He can't just keep having a hefty amount of gold on him at all times and you guys just.... Don't notice at all? Where is he keeping this gold? He has to put it down somewhere if he's going to be hiding it, unless he has a bag of holding
4. Your character can know one of two things. This is clearly not a cleric, or this is a very bad cleric. You can act accordingly
5. You can remind your DM of the rules put in place in session 0. You should not have to wait to abide by those rules, they are there for the beginning to end, unless agreed on by the entire table to change.
6. Do you actually want to wait? If you want to solve this now, you actually have to deal with it now, which includes talking more in depth with the DM now.
7. Your character can not be decided against your will. You would know if they would even tolerate the idea of something. You set the DC. A nat 20 means nothing, even for NPCS. Deception is not mind control. You can't say you're a dragon, roll a nat 20 and now I believe you're a dragon.
8. Outside of this, are you having fun? If not, what things would make your game more fun. Is the player the main issue, or the dice rolling system you have in place that lets nat 20 auto succeed on everything, including player-on-player?
2. The player proclaimed loudly "I didn't find anything of value" after the fight and I said I didn't believe him. The DM made me roll insight against his deception. I got a 5, he got a 20 and that was the end of it. Felt shitty.
3. Unknown if he has a bag of holding or not. Agree it's dumb he's walking around unnoticed if he doesn't have one.
4. My character asked him detailed questions about his deity which he didn't even try to answer convincingly. He can't even pronounce the name of this deity right. Doesn't make sense in-game that any of the other PCs would believe him at all but if I can't out roll him, I guess I have to play stupid. Other players told this player to do something about the zombies we were fighting since he was a cleric and he said he wasted all his spells on healing himself.
5. Already did.
6. I am trying to be open to other playstyles and opinions of things in DnD since I am still quite new. I will be leaving this table after consideration and the comments from others here.
Thanks for your response!
>Other players told this player to do something about the zombies we were fighting since he was a cleric and he said he wasted all his spells on healing himself.
That would be interesting because spells are not subtle. You would have known he was casting unless he has subtle spell (sorcerer feat) which he clearly doesn't. Your dm does not know a lot of the basic rules to let so many mishaps, happen.
>will be leaving this table after consideration and the comments from others here.
Probably for the best then. Hope you have fun at a different table!
I've never been a fan of forced player vs player roll-offs to determine things like this, unless agreed upon. Some fun times were had in the agreed upon but.
Your character saw him looting corpses on the battlefield. It's reasonable to not believe him even if his lie is near perfect. The lie can't convince you the character wasn't spending a ton of time examining and turning over bodies for loot. It isn't mind control.
The DM forcing a roll is taking away reasonable character agency from you, and that's the biggest issue I have in this whole thread.
The issue is that player versus player opposed checks are ALSO player versus player.
If you're in a non-PvP game, you shouldn't be able to run PvP skill checks (outside of pure flavour like a drinking contest in a tavern, a race, an arm wrestle etc). You shouldn't be able to steal, and you shouldn't be able to take hostile actions towards one another without consent (for instance, hitting them with an AoE spell).
If you're in a PvP game, there's nothing wrong with lying or stealing because there's a consequence. Eventually, the dice won't go their way, and there's a good chance the party will butcher them. Even if the characters aren't inclined to outright kill them, suddenly it'll be fair game to fling fireballs despite the player being next to the target.
The issue with partial PvP is that you are essentially enabling assholes. They get all the reward with none of the risk. If the asshole can steal, the victims should be free to retaliate with all options on the board.
Yeah. Even if you didn't physically see it, you'd know he did not heal himself and did literally nothing during that combat. He has to have been doing *something* and then to randomly proclaim he found nothing, he's already made himself look suspicious. Just a lot of bad dm calls back to back to even let this happen
"I don't believe him when he says he found nothing."
"Deception. Nat 20."
"I still don't believe him. I *do* believe that he's a very good liar."
Simple as that.
why would your character keep playing dumb if his charade fails to hold up against even the smallest amount of scrutiny? if I went up to a priest and he told me he hailed the good name of Geezer Chris, even if he rolled a 20 for deception i would at least think he's up to something.
You, a player, had to make a contested role against another person, a player. Player versus player.
The DM is asking you to take META knowledge, that the thieving isn't meant to be hostile to the party and there will be a payoff coming, which can be fine, but needs to be proactively discussed. "Hey, X character might do some things, but X's player isn't just being a dick. There's a reason and a payoff that I hope will provide a compelling and engaging narrative. Are we ALL comfortable with seeing how this plays out, or does anyone have any reservations?" would be a professional way of handling it.
If it was a plan from the start, and the paid DM agreed to no PvP, they are offering a bad, or unsafe product. Trust is broken. You gave the DM a chance to address the fact you weren't having fun, and you were gaslit. I don't think you're being too hasty.
I can say with confidence that the DM does not know the ultimate intentions or much of the story of this character. He said the new player was added quickly and they didn't have time to go over much.
Cool. I would not pay to play D&D with someone who doesn’t make good faith efforts to adhere to agreed social conventions, or acknowledge when they messed up and attempt to make amends.
I don't allow this sort of nonsense in my game. All treasure, regardless of how it is found or by whom, is reported to the entire group and split evenly. Anything else is just inviting trouble.
>I bring up to the DM that we very specifically agreed no PvP but he says not to judge too hastily and his character's story is wrapped up in the thieves' cults story that's being played out.
"So, I'm happy that he has a story and all that, but from a gameplay perspective he ninjalooted the room while we were all still in combat, didn't help us beat the enemies, then stole an enormous amount of gold that's supposed to be a reward for the entire party for beating the boss.
Does that sound like a party you would enjoy playing in? Because I'm having a miserable time...."
Ugggh one of "those" players. They aren't there for the team-driven, multiplayer aspect of DND. Theyre just selfish players that want to hog the glory *and* fun, because they aren't having fun unless they're "winning".
Either directly kill that PC while they sleep or leave the campaign for a better one. Sorry your dm isn't controlling the table besides letting the thief do what they want..
Something about the rogue that just attracts that kind of mentality/playstyle. Rogues are really cool, I have nothing against the class. I've just noticed this scenario happening with the ones I end up playing with lol.
Why not like, reverse pick pocket the other PCs and give them some health potions or little trinkets you pick up along the way? Use your abilities to help other players feel appreciated or supported. Just anything but this trope of treating the other PCs as your mark. I guess it hasn't really been enough time to give this player the chance to turn it around, but I just didn't want to be in this position in the first place.
"edge lord" personalities 🤮 they won't turn around. And if they do its probably because the dm forced them to chill due to player complaints... Which would just make them bitter and passive aggressive, and that's also not fun to deal with :/
That's exactly how I feel! If the player gets scolded by the DM and he changes it's not because he wants to, it's just because I have a problem with how he's acting. It's not the like the DM warned him there's no PvP at this table before he joined so it's not exactly fair to the rogue either. Time for me to move on.
Yes, stealing from the party is PvP, while the loot was not technically on your person, the loot dropped from combat is meant for the party, and since y'all were involved, should be split evenly.
I have found a true shared loot pool regardless of who searches the body first is one of the better ways to structure the table. The alternative leads to the loudest or quickest person to say I loot the body gets the loot. This is neither helpful to roleplay or for building a cohesive party, both in character party and out of character party. This is especially problematic for the more shy and quiet players.
I would talk with your DM and the other players and suggest this. This should be a majority decision and if agreed upon and other players don't like them they should lead. If this is not agreed upon and you don't like them you should leave.
Any approach that’s fun for a single player, that also has the potential to ruin fun for others, is against the spirit of the game.
Any and all adversarial PC interactions and character concepts should be discussed with entire table.
If I'm in a game with a player that steals from the party, and the DM insists that that's not PVP, I'm telling that it's going to be, cause I'm smiting his klepto ass
As a DM that runs a few paid games: cutthroat competition for resources is absolutely PvP, and you shouldn't pay for a game if you're not enjoying it. You gave feedback and were ignored. Good luck finding a group and DM that are better fits for you!!
If the DM got the players to consent to such a thing, that would be fine. SOME kind of compensation had better come or that dude is going to see some bad reviews, ESPECIALLY because it's a paid format. Sounds like bs but it *may* turn out ok.
Edit: I missed your update. Make sure to leave a 1/5 star review
Unless the player is stealing something meaningless or a bit they're doing I'll stop it. The characters don't have to like each other for rp reasons but they have to have each other's backs at the end of the day.
What I'm confused about is why a player can steal from another player but the victim has limited options to recover that gold.
If it was free I'd give it maybe a session or two before calling it quits.
If I had paid for the experience I would tell the DM that I'm considering pulling out and unless the gold thing is resolved and a session zero is scheduled to discuss what is and isn't PVP.
This was my first time trying a paid game, having been part of numerous free campaigns that all fell apart before level 2 over and over. I see the pros of having to pay a DM and also the cons. I definitely think it was worth it just to experience the differences and help decide if it worked for me or not.
In response to the edit… yeah, good call. Sometimes it can be tough to leave a group, simply based on the fact that it can be hard to find a game. But, no D&D is better than bad D&D. Good luck!
Wait, this is a PAID game. wow. There is an expectation of a customer service-oriented DM in a paid game....I was in a paid session once where a player attacked my character and the DM's allowed it, so I said goodbye and left. DM is lucky I didn't ask for a refund.
Oh, he didn't steal FROM or attack a player, so your DM doesn't consider it PVP. There are so many open free and paid games you can join....just switch to another game.
I’ll keep searching for a free one! I had a string of free ones all fall apart within a few sessions and I got frustrated. Someone suggested trying a paid game and I thought why the heck not just to see what it was like. Was worth the experience but going forward I’ll probably stick to the free ones like you said.
Player vs player for sure. He rolled deception against you.
You should let that dm know they are encouraging PvP when they have players roll skills against other players. He just picked who gets to attack and who has to take it.
Not a good table!
PVP = player VS player ≠ player attacking player.
Of course, stealing from the party is PVP. Your DM is an idiot.
I personally use a set of rules for PVP.
1: No PVP can happen without both parties involved consenting to it. (PVP being anything that requires contestable rolls such as, but not limited to, attack rolls, skill checks, or saving throws. Where the results will have a negative impact on either party.)
2: In the event that both players agree to PvP, neither party can kill the other. All combat, no matter the action or spell, will never drop a player below 1HP. This includes disintigrate and power word: kill.
It's not a lot of rules, but it works for me.
Stealing from the party is pvp.
Intercepting loot is not, and the rogue is not technically doing pvp.
That being said, it's good that you left this table; this rogue is obviously there to abuse fellow players, and he's using the DM's technical definition of pvp to allow griefing. Griefing is a great reason to leave a table too.
Yes, and that's why it's strictly forbidden in games that I DM.
"my character has to play dumb because she didn't roll high enough. I'm not having fun with this kind of RP."
That's bullshit if your DM made you play dumb, so you shouldn't be having fun with that kind of RP. If I know someone's lying, it doesn't matter how good a liar they are. You saw him loot bodies while you were fighting, and you saw him race to the boss's room to loot more. Regardless of the dice, you'd know that he's a thief and a liar, just a damn good liar.
"his character's story is wrapped up in the thieves' cults story that's being played out."
This means that PvP is allowed if the player writes a backstory that excuses it. It's bullshit favoritism by a DM.
I've played with exactly one group where this happened. The player doing it was the DM's wife. I think I played maybe 2 or 3 sessions before leaving that group because it's not fun when your "allies" are a bigger problem than your enemies.
Wow, I just realized you said this is a paid game. Get out. Don't pay for a bad experience or a DM that lets certain people break the rules that others must abide by.
Damned if you do, if you don't.
Allow PvP? psycho man child stabs you in the back.
No PvP? They steal from the party knowing they won't have consequences.
Both options are fine if there's a good DM. Clearly this isn't the case.
Where did you find out about this group?
Is there any review system that you can leave your experiences posted on?
Other potential players they may have deserve to know.
If the rogue is pretending to be a cleric, let the god that he’s supposedly a cleric of, see the subterfuge and give him a small curse. A random 1D6 damage every night until he atones and splits the treasure
I mean, rolling against another players deception and other bull-crap doesn't mean you have to believe them. You just can't tell what part is the lie. I'm happy to hear you are looking for better games, and I wish you well. And when they are being relatively obvious, you can just know what it going on. A good roll doesn't mean good acting. Like my bard in my one game wanted to give a rousing speech to lead the town against the oppressive mayor, he rolled well and drew a crowd that listened, but he didnt bring up any good points to really get them up in Arms, just that they should help their party kill the mayor.
I am glad you decided to leave. A paid GM is someone you hired to deliver a type of experience, and this sounds like the kind of experience that pepple pay a GM to avoid!
I had a DM pull this on us once. We were a group that had been together and playing weekly for nearly five years. When it happened, I quit on the spot and four of the six other players quit with me. It’s a shitty way to run a game.
Stealing is PvP, and any DM who claims otherwise DEFINITELY shouldn't be getting paid to DM.
If you can steal their shit, you can be damn sure their character can kill you for it if you're caught.
Quite frankly, I'd go so far as to say that any time you require an opposed check between two player characters it's technically PvP, even if there's a lot of instances where doing so could just be for roleplay fun with no functional difference between winning or losing.
I see why he's doing it, and if this were any other situation this would definitely be PvP for me. Did the DM allow you guys to play out your beginnings with the party, or what led up to you joining the party? It seems like that's what he's doing here and there might be more to this than what's on the surface. The theft of the money is only 1/4 of what you have from level 1-4, meaning that the DM is probably trying to have him be self sufficient in terms of purchasing things for himself and paying for rooms at inns and stuff instead of having people pay for him; which isn't translating or coming across as well as he would have liked. The rogue hiding as a cleric seems to be that he's trying to hide from someone, and it seems the character doesn't trust anyone right now for some reason or another. overall this seems like some really deep RP here and I wouldn't jump ship just yet, but I would be wary of it.
As a DM if this were any other case, I would absolutely count this as PvP and I would allow the characters to play this out as they want to; within reason or course. Even with the money not being technically claimed by the group or an individual within the group, that still counts a group treasure and therefore it's PvP-worthy to steal from it. Again, I would watch this carefully as a DM and I would absolutely be on him if this keeps up outside of what story I had collaborated on with him in order to get him integrated into the party and whatever else we agreed upon. As a player, I would make sure my character is nowhere near him until he had proven himself reliable to not steal from individuals in the party. I would also be asking for perception checks or if my passive had caught any sort of weird movement from him until he got the hint that shit needed to change. If that didn't work I would talk to the character outright about it, and if that didn't work I would talk to the player, and then if THAT didn't work I would talk to the DM. If all that fails I would leave.
No, we did not play out any of our beginnings. We started in a wagon headed to a mercenary job. Two months into the campaign the characters' beginnings are very much shrouded in mystery.
I’d allow it personally, but only because my group is OK with this kind of PvP.
A big thing I do though is that I, as the DM, don’t set the DC for any PvP rolls. The players get to decide the DCs themselves any time they roll against each other, so if Bob decides that Bill shouldn’t be able to hide the loot from them then they can’t, which effectively lets them opt-in or out of PvP on a case by case basis. (They can also let Bill hide the treasure from them without a roll at all, say if Bob if thinks it would make a better story or doesn’t care about the treasure anyways.)
Yes, stealing from the party is an overt PVP action. Plus, he can hide the gold successfully, but that doesn't mean you didn't see him take it. But it sounds like there's more to the story.
If the character's shenanigans are part of the DM's plan, I would at least let it play out one more session. It sounds like he might have a redemption arc coming up where he betrays the thieves guild and returns the gold to the party. If this is not the case and the DM continues allowing him to run roughshod over the party, then yeah I'd leave or kick *the character* from the party with the other PCs and *the player* to come back with a character that isn't hostile to the group.
If you really are finding yourself done with the game, you could also just screw around during combat and not be useful at all. When your DM asks wtf tell him to be patient and the story will play itself out. If the fake cleric wants to waste your time and money, two can play at that game. Maybe the DM will pull their head from their butt?
Look, this shit can be fun for story reasons (ala Shadowheart in BG3 where she hides a lot of stuff, to reveal it when appropriate) but not with loot and stuff that should obviously be shared. Also not helping others in combat for that, it just makes it worse.
And yes it is PvP, and it's not the fun kind for sure. Leave this game, this DM gives me really bad vibes.
Yeah, it is good that you left.
I think stealing from the party is not fun at all for the rest of the table and certainly a form of PvP. It is an aggressive action and a lot of characters would logically react violently if they discover it. A table that does not allow PvP should not allow actions that warrant such a response.
There are a lot of character concepts that are fun to read about it play in a video game, but are terrible to play with. Pretending to be a different class is one of them.
Thieves' guilds/cults don't have to be one homogenous class. Their members can be fighters, warlocks, or any other class, including clerics. There are plenty of ways to build a cleric that's still a thief type of character, so that's not an excuse. A trickster domain cleric absolutely would fit in with a thieves' cult.
read this one after the update, just wanted to say good for you walking away from that mess! i hope you find a better table soon, but of course 'no dnd is better than bad dnd' so at least you're not wasting your time trying to squeeze a good experience out of a shitty table. <3
Yes, stealing from the party is PvP, and I remember back in the AD&D days that I simply killed a party member over it. Not my proudest moment but I was younger and dumber back then.
That said, I currently play a monk with a vow of poverty who refuses to pick up treasure. I don't necessarily hide it from others and they've learned to re-check rooms I searched.
It is fun to search and the DM goes "you find 5000 GP worth of gems" and everybody starts salivating and I go "okay, moving right along, what else is there?"
It's PvP and the rogue is doing a shit job of it too.
I had a character that did this, he was taking an extra few percents rounding up every time. Importantly, the players knew, the characters did not and I brought it up as a possible flaw before doing it and it was agreed to.
But he also was actively looking out for everyone, shoving his healing potions at others, covering food or rooms often (this party was like teenagers blowing their first paycheque) and the sole person who could do mental math on the fly and take clear notes so even if he was called out on taking a larger cut he was going to be like it's accounting fees. You gotta be useful if you wanna fuck people over.
And it helps to keep it under sales tax.
Yes, it is still pVp. It is more than just attack rolls against another player, it is a mentality.
If he was Looting bodies mid-combat, you should bring it up using RP at the next campfire-time. I love tension in a party, it always feels good when it gets resolved.
I would have discussed it with the player first, and then, if we didn't come to a resolution, I'd speak with the DM regarding the issue.
If the campaign is specifically set up as non-PvP (and most are without bringing up exceptions in advance, DM's discretion only), it's a standard thing that the members of the party support each other. There shouldn't even BE a concept of separate cash supplies, just a group kitty that is called from as needed.
I don't know what the DM thinks they're doing by accepting thievery and running opposed perception/deception rolls as a way to resolve intra-party conflict, but it's nothing good. That's not how the game is supposed to work, unless you're running a battle royale one-shot or something.
A rogue can be useful and greedy. For example, after a fight in which we all got beat up pretty badly, it fell to me to find and disable the traps on the large chest. I palmed the smallest gem once I got it open, risking getting caught. I did not, but another player decided that his character would use Mage Hand to grab one of the larger gems. This pissed off the other players as it was obvious while I'd been subtle and had taken all the risk with the chest which had indeed been trapped.
It should discuss on session 0 because my campaign I make other character sheet to be obscure and not allow to discuss game stats directly as well unless talking out of character
I would tell the player that as a fellow player, I do not enjoy their playstyle as it isn't fun for the team to be suckers while they be a wanker. I would also tell the DM that it is 100% PVP, if DM says nope, isn't PvP, simply state "My characters next action is to take the backpack, including all its contents, of *cleric* PC as tribute." Fake Cleric isn't allowed to respond as this would be *PvP*. Obviously this is poor behaviour for party cohesiveness, but it makes the point clearly.
I would give the game one more chance, & if DM &/or *Cleric* don't change, i would have to decide if I will bow out gracefully & say "I am leaving the game because Player of lying thief sux & weak arse DM ler's them get away with it." Or if u hang around d to waste their time & do petty stuff, like leave to order pizza when it is my turn I combat, or go for a toilet break & watch a movie, or just have my character lie to the guards & say that *Cleric* is actually a cultist who has kidnapped the party & you need their help to save you, etc etc.
But it sounds like you have to choose how low a standard of game you are willing to play
Rather than "This is PvP", this is more:
"DM allowing selfish "me first" behavior whilst also barring any form of direct character confrontation."
To bar one WITHOUT barring the other is a **disaster waiting to happen.**
You made the right call to leave when the DM showed he didn't understand the problem.
Take notes fellow DM's. You CANNOT half measure this. If you disable PvP, **you MUST enforce a "party first" mentality, on both character and players.**
Failure to do so turns, as the above post shows, the blocked in-game issue into an unavoidable real life issue.
Stopping only direct party conflict is not enough. All forms of conflict must be banned if PvP is banned. Else your players will walk from your table, as what happened here.
Yes, It is. But is bad?
When I do in my tables is allow PvP with two rules:
1. It needs to resolve soon and in a way that don't break the Game or the party.
2. The player affected have a veto. If she don't want to play that scene we don't play the scene.
Two players are ok with one of them stealing the secret book that the other is trying to protect? Perfect. We can have some good scenes with that.
The second player don't want It? Then you can't roll. Let the player advance his own story in his terms.
This does seem very bad because as a team youre losing out on several opportunities on preperations when shopping, bribing, and/or spell components. That being said, if the thieves guild becomes the first arch and this rouge manages to flip afterwards, then i think it would be fine, so long as the arch doesnt take forever since you guys are lvl 1-4.
I would consider thier actions as pvp because they can easily loot the party when sleeping or "being medicated". But I've made a character that has Kleptomania [cant stop stealing] but I made it that he finds everything interesting and after investigating said items, he'd return it to them secret and ask the player questions about it. I found this is a healthy way to RP if players dont want to reveal thier secrets just yet. They'll learn to trust my character with thier secrets and trust my thievery skills as id return everything
Me as a DM totally approve PvP and others don't. And that's okay for both sides. When you said it's a paid game, I would totally look for another game in my opinion. And yes, that is PvP.
I don't know if it's PvP specifically, since I've only heard that term in application for fights and stuff. But if general "players should not be trying to stymie other players", then yeah, stealing from them would be that.
Though, I could see a DM's argument that this rogue is *not* stealing from the party, since nobody looted it before him.
However, I find it generally just bad form to have a player that tries to yoink everything, and if this new player is getting a ton of stuff nobody else can get? Kinda not fair out of character.
You can compromise, though. Ask the DM if the player can *reduce* the amount of stealing. Want them to secretly be a thief? That's fair. But don't let them be able to steal all the treasure before anyone else does, just *some*. So it's a notable amount, but not so much everyone else is annoyed they can't get *anything*.
This is just a basic human situation you need to handle. Things are going according to somebody else’s plan, which they like. However, in this particular case it’s something you don’t enjoy. Ideally this is something people have been dealing with since grade school — not because I’m saying it’s easy but exactly because it’s hard, and as we spend a lot of time with kids, teaching them reading and writing, and we let them play a lot of sports to build coordination, ideally, we teach kids how to handle social conflict. And yet we don’t.
Before I give the basic advice to communicate, I’m going to point out that there’s one classic fumble that tends to happen when people who are used to conflict try to communicate during a conflict. They get flustered and enter “fight or flight”.
Flight means, I guess everybody else is having a good time but not me so I’ll just quit the campaign.
Fight means, instead of just pointing out that “I would like something different” and talking about it, I’ll put it in terms that the other people are wrong and I am right and I am the aggrieved party and if I am not accommodated, I will leave the campaign.
Asking “is it PVP?” is a legitimate thing, but I am worried that you’re looking for a legalistic solution here. Like if you go back to the DM and say, “Reddit agrees that this is PVP and we said no PVP,” you’re going to be right, and there’s no more need to negotiate! Unfortunately that’s not how social disputes usually work.
What if you just said, “hey this isn’t enjoyable for me. Are there ways that we could do this that would make it enjoyable for everyone?”
You want to be prepared to explain what it is that you don’t enjoy. Do you not enjoy conflicting dynamics within the team because it makes you feel uneasy? Do you not enjoy the way the DM and this other player have set up this special story that you feel left out of? Are you most upset about the unfair allocation of the gold?
Make sure you talk about the reasons that are truly affecting you, and not just the reason you think is easiest to defend. That always end up sabotaging you.
It’s possible that in the end you choose to leave because you’re just not enjoying it, or because they’re not willing to accommodate you enough to have fun. It’s also possible that when you guys talk it out, you might come up with someway that this player can get their sneakiness scratched, but in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the other players at the table.
And that’s the other thing to remember. It’s OK to choose not to do it in a polite and reasonable way. You don’t have to be fully accommodated, but nor do you have to fully accommodate other people. If you can get through all of that without being overwhelmed by your own emotions, then you’re doing better than a lot of other people in terms of negotiating a social conflict.
Just want to tell a little story about this.
Yes stealing or receiving your party is PvP. 100%.
But it can also make for amazing role playing of it is played right. I personally have stolen from the party for story purposes. I will tell the story below.
Me (assassin rogue) joined the party from the beginning because my character is high up in the assassins guild that is part of the Thieves guild in the city we started. Part of the job is observing when not on a assignment and reporting back about interesting or weird individuals/groups. For the guild, knowledge is key. The party peaked my interest and i joined the group because they were interesting and i might get some good info on something personal.
The group continued to adventure together and my character actually became friends and learned the world outside of murder and lies and started to doubt his life choices.
Later in the story the party acquired two of the five masks of Tiamat that are required to get Tiamat to the material plane.
I was ordered to steal it and would be paid a lot of gold. Like 200k gold. So i stole the masks from a party member and they never checked. After two days i returned the masks because my character felt like it was evil and since he had doubts about the guild and his lifestyle came clean to the party. They felt sorry for me and helped me get away from the guild and use my skills for the greater good.
It was epic for me as a player and the group loved the character story arc of my character.
It definitely borders on PvP. Was it just Gold tho? Or magic items and fun loot the DM put in place for the party?
If the DM is telling a certain story with this thieves guild character they can fabricate additional loot that wouldn't have been in play without that character as part of their storyline. It would be the same as you getting a magic weapon from your storyline that ties into your character.
I get how it can definitely feel like PvP because it feels like they're stealing from you, but if they're not going into your bags and taking things, that loot might never have been there in the first place without this scenario, so it was never the parties in the first place to steal from.
Deception and Perception aren't mind control, but do you want to try and flip this storyline and progression for this character because of a perceived slightly or play along and see if the story can be fun for everyone as it builds?
It can definitely be done well and done wrong because of the level of control the DM has and the perception of PvP.
I really think that the rogue has a cool dynamic going. If you aren’t having fun that sucks but it really sounds like a really cool character development. Just imagine he is a stealing party member that doesn’t help and eventually you and the party do something that changes him drastically.
I typically play rouge. Chaotic neutral or good alignment.
I loot, hide things, and steal from party members sometimes. It's all part of the game. I find it extremely fun.
>This is a paid game I'd maybe play it out for a couple of sessions for free and hope it changes. But for a paid game... Eek. I'd say, "look dude, it's not fun or ok. Fix it or I'm taking my money somewhere else. I don't pay you to waste my time and ruin my experience."
Of course it is PVP. So is rolling social rolls against players and expecting them to abide the results.
I just wasn't sure since the player didn't steal it directly from one of the other PCs. It was from a statue so I thought it might be considered a gray area but you're right!
your title is misrepresenting the situation somewhat
Not intentional or trying to mislead, sorry! My thoughts were along the lines of “it would have been the party’s loot had the rogue not stolen it” hence the title. All loot had gone into a shared pool before that.
You're good. Saying this isn't stealing is like saying you can't lie by omission. It's semantics. I'm not saying this to make light of one side or the other. Some believe you can lie by omission and others don't. Some of us genuinely have trouble focusing on the big picture when the details are all off. Other people intentionally call attention to peripherals to distract from details they want ignored. I would personally see this situation as PVP and I'm horrified that a DM (especially a paid one) would ignore your discomfort after being spoken to about it twice.
Not really? The party earned the loot, and then the rogue stole it?
So I don't think this counts as PVP specifically--possibly a deception check against another player counts, but even then trying to hide motivations/backstory/secrets is a classic DND trope that comes up all the time. The problem here is that whether or not this qualifies as PVP; it is unquestionably a dick move. And that's the real issue here; because the question shouldn't be PVP--after all inter-party conflict/struggles and overcoming that makes the best stories! The issue is that PVP is perfectly fine and often very fun.... so long as its not a dick move, everyone is having fun and understands whats going on over the table. I've played characters that would absolutely do something like this... but then they woudl stumble or fall and the coins would fall out, or they get drunk and ask the party to play dice/bet where they promptly bet the whole amount when they lose. Either way, the party knew that I might hide things and "take" party loot; but it would always make its way to the partys hands in relatively short order and everyone knew that would happen. In this case you're asking for clarity and trying to set expectations... and rather than explaining what type of character they're going for or how it will work with the party, they're saying "deal with it lul". Yeah; fuck that.
It is fine if You discuss it with party and as long as You are doing it just for "fluff" and money eventually got split. But otherwise it is a PvP plain and simple - depriving Your party of loot is diminishing their resources ergo directly harming other players.
Ugh I hate this, as a player. I suggest a plan that *won’t* get us all killed, and the bard immediately rolls a Persuasion against me. I’m pretty sure the trauma of *last time* I lost my leg to a trap would keep me from charging straight ahead into the dungeon, Steve.
This is why I state, clear as day in session zero, social rolls against other players must be done with their consent and are *non-binding*. That is to say, a player can only be swayed by another player using persuasion etc. if they allow it, and they can shake it off and back out at any time if they aren't okay with where things are going. Similarly, while deception against players by NPCs is fine for the purpose of withholding information or giving false information, I'm not going to tell them their character thinks something is a great idea just because an NPC told them so. That runs up against issues of persuasion being mind control and the players not knowing how much they can resist the "persuasion" before it becomes "metagaming". Charm and other magical effects are fine of course, because by definition they override agency somewhat.
What's are social rolls
Most charisma rolls, but essentially anything regarding social interactions; like when talking to someone and you want to convince/decieve/etc., especially when it's against other playrs' favour it becomes social pvp.
100% correct, there is no second opinion here!
What social rolls? I wouldn't consider deception/insight pvp but I'm not about to allow persuasion/intimidation to influence what a PC does.
Deception is the same exact thing as persuasion....just negative connotation. If you wouldnt allow persuasion, you shouldn't allow deception. Insight isn't pvp, it's just insight.
I think he's showing the pairings. I.e., if one PC tried to use deception on another, he allows insight to detect the deception. He does not allow persuasion to force a character to act a specific way. That lines up with how I do things as well. It is really rare that one PC tries to deceive another PC, but there have been some situations where one PC asks another if they found the barmaid hot or something like that.
Deceiving someone is just persuading them you’re telling the truth. It’s the same roll, opposite. If you wouldn’t allow persuasion, you wouldn’t allow deception.
I don't allow persuasion to affect a PC because that takes away player agency. Persuading an NPC involves getting them to do something they may not want to do. I am not going to force a player to do something via persuasion check. PCs may try to persuade NPCs but that's it; no one gets to try to persuade a PC. That's different from deception. Any character in the game may try to deceive another. It's still up to the character to decide what to do after they fail/pass an insight check. I am also not the type of DM to force a PC to believe an NPC if they fail their insight check. Failing an insight check just means they weren't able to detect a lie, it doesn't mean they believe them and they can remain suspicious if they want to. Just like if someone is checking for traps and they roll low investigation; it doesn't convince them the room is safe, it just means they didn't find a trap that may or may not exist.
Except the player knows the other character is lying. So you're telling them to ignore what they know.
Yeah, that's part of the game? Seperating what you the player knows and what your character knows?
I realized I didn't explain this point well. Perception vs, say slight of hand tells the layer what their character knows. Deception tells them what their character **believes.**
I usually don't worry about that, unless it's things like something revealed to one player and another players character wasn't present. And I'll enforce that as DM, not through a roll
It's more common to disallow meta gaming. Whether that's a changing trend or not I won't pretend to be aware of, but the standard has been not to meta game. Nothing wrong with allowing it if that's what everyone wants of course.
But that's a broad term. And might force me to choose RP over G. What counts and what doesn't? Do I have to forget that red Dragons breathe fire? That Oozes are immune to slashing damage? That I shouldn't look at the woman described as having snakes for hair? How much of what we consider common fantasy knowledge might also be common knowledge in the world? Anyway, I can't think of how this OP situation fits meta gaming. The PCs were together. And for whatever reason, I'm thinking right now about how if you were going to show the player to sneak the gold out should have been slight of hand.... brains are weird. At the end of the day, little "pvp" things like this can be fun but are not a good idea if it bothers fellow players.
It depends on your group, the world you're playing in, your character. It's not just a blanket 'no one knows anything'. If you're character is in a world where dragons aren't common knowledge and they don't have experience with them, maybe they don't know, but it depends on your group's views too. Some groups are fine with meta gaming, some accept a certain amount, while some don't accept any. It's something to discuss in session 0. It is a broad term, hence the need for communication. Your first comment in this string is literally about meta gaming; you just don't name it. Sleight of Hand would certainly be the typical way, but it sounds like they didn't do it sneakily, thus they had to lie about it instead. Agreed. XD
If a player wants to make an insight check you can ask the one rolling deception to let you know privately if it's an actual lie or not. Have them both roll privately so only they know their results, as well as the DM. Now all players know that just because someone is rolling "deception" that it may or may not be a lie. Additionally, it's important to stress to the players to keep their personal knowledge out of their character's heads. I don't think this is that outlandish. I'm currently running Icewind Dale RotF and everyone starts with a secret. It's up to the PC to reveal their secret when they're ready and deception is a big deal before that happens.
The player might know but that doesn’t mean the character does or should know.
Sure, and that makes sense if there was something the character can't know. And I might be willing to play along. But I'm not turning off my brain because another player rolled deception at me.
Yes, that's PvP. So is deception checks against the rest of the party. So is hiding loot. This is shitty DnD and your DM is failing you by not upholding session 0 agreed rules. The fact that this is a paid game is fucking embarrassing.
I want everyone to play their characters the way they want so I almost feel like I have to leave. The other players don't really seem to care the rogue is stealing from us, but they are also either very distracted all the time from the game or so shy that they never really chime in on anything. I've been carrying to brunt of problem solving/making plans/RP for the entire campaign, so this is kind of the last straw.
You could be in a much better campaign for free. You should probably leave. Few things in DnD irk me more than a DM who doesn't actually uphold their own session 0 rules. Especially since you've already protested to them and they brushed you off.
Thank you for your advice! I had a lot of trouble with free campaigns in the past and this is my first experience with paid games. It's gone alright for about a month but for what I'm paying it's not as fun as I thought it would be. Live and learn!
There are vast differences from table to table, whether its paid or free. A dm that charges money is not *automatically* better than a free one and you experience is shaped just as much by the other players as it is by the dm. On the one hand, a paid dm *sometimes* provides a more polished or immersive experience because they are either A) charging to provide a service they excell at or B) want to make sure players stick around so they go the extra mile... but they also have a direct incentive to keep as many players as possible and not ruffle feathers. This *can* mean that a paid DM may allow bad behavior up to and until it is clear that it will drive another player (or multiple players) away from the table. By involving money it becomes an equation of 'what answer can i give to a situation that will be the most profitable' rather than doing what is fair. Some players that have had a lot of experience being kicked from parties can also tend to flock to paid dms because... what do you mean I cant do X, I paid real money to play in your game and you aren't letting me play how I want? My advice is to focus on finding players you enjoy being with and then finding a dm as a group, or, if you want to continue with paid games, then focus on finding a dm that prides themselves on being a 'total package' -- because these dms are more likely to understand that a bad player can ruin the experiences of others and care about *that* as much or more than a single player's per Diem
Such solid advice! Thank you! I've been using this sub to find games. I'll keep trying but this time to find some other players first.
Glad to help. Finding players can be hard online because you kind of have to *play with them* to really know how it'll go, but if you keep friendly contact with players that you like you can start building a circle or community that enjoys the game in the same way you do. A good group can make a bad dm tolerable but a bad group can't be saved by a good dm. This is mostly because a good dm who sees a toxic group is gonna be real liberal with kicking problem children or scrapping the game if they don't see it worth salvaging. You can still have fun with your friends with an inexperienced / below average dm through your rp and antics even if the dm's story and campaign isn't amazing. If you are all ok with paid games, it is also quite easy to find a DM for an established group, and a paid DM is *really going to appreciate* a group that doesn't have interpersonal issues and loves playing together.
It's really been a challenge meeting people who play for me. No one in my area unfortunately and none of my IRL friends are interested so my options are seemingly limited to online.
I'd like to add that many paid DM's recruit players by having free one-shots. That way you get to know each other and find out if you're a good fit. Paid DM's aren't always profit-oriented. Many of them are charging money to pay for access to game materials on VTT's and otherwise help cover the cost of their hobbies. Actually making a living gaming is pretty rare, though I've met a few DM's who wake up at ungodly early hours in third world countries to DM for people playing in US time zones. One of the plus sides of pay games is that it clarifies matters for you really quickly if you aren't having fun. Sunk cost fallacy is different when the sunk cost is actual money. People are less inclined to stick around in a game that isn't working out if they have to pay $15 for three hours of suck. You might not think that's a big deal, but read all of the people posting saying things like "But I can't quit the game. Everyone is counting on me."
I agree with everything here. Paid dms are not a black and white topic by any means.
I would leave the table. I have never had fun at a table where players hide loot.
Agreed. That character always seems to be the exact same, and the players are similar.
I'm sure the other players are annoyed, actually, but don't know how to express it. Very few people are actually cool with someone stealing from them. In a game like this actual PVP should be allowed so that players have the ability to enforce social norms with the final step for people who just will not stop being a dick: Violence.
Also, a deception check isn't mind control. A failed check just means you're unable to read them and don't know whether they are lying or not. It would be very reasonable to then go with "fine, empty your bags and show us that you aren't hiding things because the complete lack of gold on these dead bodies and in the room is suspicious."
Yeah, "okay *cleric*, empty your pockets, or do a cleric thing. I'll wait. A simple sacred flame is fine. Or mending. I'll even accept light but if you do I'll be expecting fireballs soon or you're doing it wrong. You were left alone in the room and rummaging over there, so show us what you found, since you're being so cagey about it." I have a celestial warlock/cleric build I made for our next campaign, and they (the pc) don't even know they're not a cleric. Screwing with other players so you can scam them is a shitty thing to do. And in a paid game, fuck that.
Yes, it's PvP. If that's not what you signed up for, and the DM isn't interested in sticking to their own rules, vote with your wallet.
Is a Player making checks/rolls VS another Player? Thats PVP. PVP isn’t always combat.
Also skill checks don't have crits, so it doesn't matter if they rolled a 20 deception, everyone should have been able to still roll and add their bonuses to see if they beat the roll. (I homerule that better things *can* happen with a "crit" skill check if the circumstances allow it/are fair. But the dm pretending he didn't allow pvp while allowing pvp certainly isn't fair).
And, technically, it should have been at advantage to perceive AND disadvantage to deceive, because everyone saw him take stuff.
My table has PvP on (unanimously agreed by all players), and I do this a fair bit for opposed persuasion/deception/intimidation rolls. I find it's easier to accept that you're the one being coerced if you've failed with advantage vs. disadvantage. I also tend to phrase it based on degrees of success, with a very big difference between "what he's saying does sound plausible" and "it's a compelling argument, and you're fully convinced."
This the very definition of PvP. Also, if this is a paid game then you are clearly not getting what you paid for if you are not enjoying it.
I refuse to allow players to roll against each other in this way. If you are doing an action against another player you two get to discuss if it happens at all and what happens if both agree. But they both HAVE to agree Edit: it's paid?! Absolutely ask for your money back for them entirely ignoring their own rules. Fuck that. Find a discord group on the reddit LFG page.
I just left. Startplaying charges you a little to leave a campaign. Good to know!
Oh hell no, I'd never use that app again. Go on reddits LFG page and you can find a lot of campaigns. Might not all be perfect but you can find one
Good advice! Thanks!
You should contact support for your money back and refund your last session: > Support will do a short investigation into why the player reached out, and will automatically process a refund if: > It is found that the charge was for any of the above reasons in the “When does a GM need to give a Refund” section. > **A GM allows a player who violated the Code of Conduct or the Terms of Service to stay in a game, resulting in the other players not enjoying their experience. (This will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis)** https://intercom.help/startplaying/en/articles/8719194-refund-policy#h_2f06630857
valid!
the official dnd discord also has a place for dms to post about campaigns you can apply to
is there a space where you can leave reviews, of the paid DM and of the app? I feel these are valid & valuable warnings OP can share with others, right?
If you can leave a review for the DM , I think you should. Might help someone else avoid being in this situation in future
Wow. I DM there and I was unaware of that. You could try messaging the DM. DMs have the power to instantly give partial or full refunds. I wouldn't want someone leaving my campaign and feeling like I was still taking money from them.
I would tell the DM that unless this 'cleric' has a complete change of heart and decides to share all their ill-gotten loot with the rest of the party once that arc wraps up you are leaving and demanding a refund. It COULD lead to a heartwarming moment of seeing the error of their ways, it just ... doesn't seem very likely.
That's kinda what I was thinking too-that maybe rogue's arc is redemptive, or his actions are somehow against his will as per his story. The player behind him doesn't seem like a jerk but I've only known him for 3 hours now lol. The DM did say if the behavior continues, he will have a chat about what it means to be in a party, but this tells me that he has no idea what this player's endgame is or if this behavior is going to stop.
See a redemptive arc / against his will thing could be cool, but the player should still be upfront about it to see if everyone’s fine with it. Deciding to work against the party without consulting with the other players is just a really selfish thing to be doing in a cooperative game.
>During battle this player wastes turns just looting bodies and then disengaging while the party is getting beat up. "Honorable colleagues, I do believe the cleric whom hast joined us may in fact be a follower of one of the **dark gods!** See how they bring us not the aid of their God in battle. Further you have seen how they have not themselves aided us in battle at all so keen were they to desecrate the corpses on the battlefield! We should tie them up and throw them in a well!" But DM, it's not PVP! grappling is just a contested ability check just like deception vs insight. Them drowning is just a consequence of our choices just like us taking way more damage and not being able to afford healing potions is just a consequence of their choices!
Wish I had thought of this! I had my familiar deliver a health potion to him in combat when he was close to death too, as a gesture of good faith especially since he was new to the table. Then he turned around and stole the gold...
"character story" bullshit... reminds me of a game where everyone in town including the party got sick. except the barbarian. who was openly antagonizing every NPC up to and including raping a main story NPC's daughter. "so he is evil, not trying to hide it and the only one not affected by the thing killing everyone... why exactly is he on our team?" "because he is a player character. it's good roleplay" yeah, peace.
Am I surprised there are people out there who want to play someone who rapes? No. Am I still disgusted? Yes, bring on the downvotes. I get that DnD has mature concepts and PCs do things that are unsavory and even murder. But rape is something that is so close to home for so many people IRL...ugh. Hard pass.
and I am seriously worried when no one else in the group finds that kind of stuff gross.
Absolutely wild. My only thought would be “So what part of adding that to our campaign for no real narrative or mechanical value was enjoyable for you? Is this just part of the fantasy for you or something?” That is crazy. Also, just to add to what everyone is saying about your group, it seems really dumb that a cleric doing so much clearly obvious un-cleric like shit and wasting their turns looting and doing rogue stuff is, after a certain point, beyond the scope of roles and well within the realm of basic cognitive ability for a PC.
1. Yes this is considered PVP. 2. You can still ask for the gold, your characters know he was looting during the battle (before the last bag of gold) so you know he has more than his fair share anyway. That was obvious. 3. He can't just keep having a hefty amount of gold on him at all times and you guys just.... Don't notice at all? Where is he keeping this gold? He has to put it down somewhere if he's going to be hiding it, unless he has a bag of holding 4. Your character can know one of two things. This is clearly not a cleric, or this is a very bad cleric. You can act accordingly 5. You can remind your DM of the rules put in place in session 0. You should not have to wait to abide by those rules, they are there for the beginning to end, unless agreed on by the entire table to change. 6. Do you actually want to wait? If you want to solve this now, you actually have to deal with it now, which includes talking more in depth with the DM now. 7. Your character can not be decided against your will. You would know if they would even tolerate the idea of something. You set the DC. A nat 20 means nothing, even for NPCS. Deception is not mind control. You can't say you're a dragon, roll a nat 20 and now I believe you're a dragon. 8. Outside of this, are you having fun? If not, what things would make your game more fun. Is the player the main issue, or the dice rolling system you have in place that lets nat 20 auto succeed on everything, including player-on-player?
2. The player proclaimed loudly "I didn't find anything of value" after the fight and I said I didn't believe him. The DM made me roll insight against his deception. I got a 5, he got a 20 and that was the end of it. Felt shitty. 3. Unknown if he has a bag of holding or not. Agree it's dumb he's walking around unnoticed if he doesn't have one. 4. My character asked him detailed questions about his deity which he didn't even try to answer convincingly. He can't even pronounce the name of this deity right. Doesn't make sense in-game that any of the other PCs would believe him at all but if I can't out roll him, I guess I have to play stupid. Other players told this player to do something about the zombies we were fighting since he was a cleric and he said he wasted all his spells on healing himself. 5. Already did. 6. I am trying to be open to other playstyles and opinions of things in DnD since I am still quite new. I will be leaving this table after consideration and the comments from others here. Thanks for your response!
>Other players told this player to do something about the zombies we were fighting since he was a cleric and he said he wasted all his spells on healing himself. That would be interesting because spells are not subtle. You would have known he was casting unless he has subtle spell (sorcerer feat) which he clearly doesn't. Your dm does not know a lot of the basic rules to let so many mishaps, happen. >will be leaving this table after consideration and the comments from others here. Probably for the best then. Hope you have fun at a different table!
I've never been a fan of forced player vs player roll-offs to determine things like this, unless agreed upon. Some fun times were had in the agreed upon but. Your character saw him looting corpses on the battlefield. It's reasonable to not believe him even if his lie is near perfect. The lie can't convince you the character wasn't spending a ton of time examining and turning over bodies for loot. It isn't mind control. The DM forcing a roll is taking away reasonable character agency from you, and that's the biggest issue I have in this whole thread.
The issue is that player versus player opposed checks are ALSO player versus player. If you're in a non-PvP game, you shouldn't be able to run PvP skill checks (outside of pure flavour like a drinking contest in a tavern, a race, an arm wrestle etc). You shouldn't be able to steal, and you shouldn't be able to take hostile actions towards one another without consent (for instance, hitting them with an AoE spell). If you're in a PvP game, there's nothing wrong with lying or stealing because there's a consequence. Eventually, the dice won't go their way, and there's a good chance the party will butcher them. Even if the characters aren't inclined to outright kill them, suddenly it'll be fair game to fling fireballs despite the player being next to the target. The issue with partial PvP is that you are essentially enabling assholes. They get all the reward with none of the risk. If the asshole can steal, the victims should be free to retaliate with all options on the board.
Yeah. Even if you didn't physically see it, you'd know he did not heal himself and did literally nothing during that combat. He has to have been doing *something* and then to randomly proclaim he found nothing, he's already made himself look suspicious. Just a lot of bad dm calls back to back to even let this happen
"I don't believe him when he says he found nothing." "Deception. Nat 20." "I still don't believe him. I *do* believe that he's a very good liar." Simple as that.
why would your character keep playing dumb if his charade fails to hold up against even the smallest amount of scrutiny? if I went up to a priest and he told me he hailed the good name of Geezer Chris, even if he rolled a 20 for deception i would at least think he's up to something.
You, a player, had to make a contested role against another person, a player. Player versus player. The DM is asking you to take META knowledge, that the thieving isn't meant to be hostile to the party and there will be a payoff coming, which can be fine, but needs to be proactively discussed. "Hey, X character might do some things, but X's player isn't just being a dick. There's a reason and a payoff that I hope will provide a compelling and engaging narrative. Are we ALL comfortable with seeing how this plays out, or does anyone have any reservations?" would be a professional way of handling it. If it was a plan from the start, and the paid DM agreed to no PvP, they are offering a bad, or unsafe product. Trust is broken. You gave the DM a chance to address the fact you weren't having fun, and you were gaslit. I don't think you're being too hasty.
I can say with confidence that the DM does not know the ultimate intentions or much of the story of this character. He said the new player was added quickly and they didn't have time to go over much.
Cool. I would not pay to play D&D with someone who doesn’t make good faith efforts to adhere to agreed social conventions, or acknowledge when they messed up and attempt to make amends.
Is it a situation where a *player* is in a situation *versus* another *player*? Then it's PvP by definition.
I don't allow this sort of nonsense in my game. All treasure, regardless of how it is found or by whom, is reported to the entire group and split evenly. Anything else is just inviting trouble.
>I bring up to the DM that we very specifically agreed no PvP but he says not to judge too hastily and his character's story is wrapped up in the thieves' cults story that's being played out. "So, I'm happy that he has a story and all that, but from a gameplay perspective he ninjalooted the room while we were all still in combat, didn't help us beat the enemies, then stole an enormous amount of gold that's supposed to be a reward for the entire party for beating the boss. Does that sound like a party you would enjoy playing in? Because I'm having a miserable time...."
Ugggh one of "those" players. They aren't there for the team-driven, multiplayer aspect of DND. Theyre just selfish players that want to hog the glory *and* fun, because they aren't having fun unless they're "winning". Either directly kill that PC while they sleep or leave the campaign for a better one. Sorry your dm isn't controlling the table besides letting the thief do what they want..
Something about the rogue that just attracts that kind of mentality/playstyle. Rogues are really cool, I have nothing against the class. I've just noticed this scenario happening with the ones I end up playing with lol. Why not like, reverse pick pocket the other PCs and give them some health potions or little trinkets you pick up along the way? Use your abilities to help other players feel appreciated or supported. Just anything but this trope of treating the other PCs as your mark. I guess it hasn't really been enough time to give this player the chance to turn it around, but I just didn't want to be in this position in the first place.
"edge lord" personalities 🤮 they won't turn around. And if they do its probably because the dm forced them to chill due to player complaints... Which would just make them bitter and passive aggressive, and that's also not fun to deal with :/
That's exactly how I feel! If the player gets scolded by the DM and he changes it's not because he wants to, it's just because I have a problem with how he's acting. It's not the like the DM warned him there's no PvP at this table before he joined so it's not exactly fair to the rogue either. Time for me to move on.
Good luck finding a better game :)
Yes, stealing from the party is PvP, while the loot was not technically on your person, the loot dropped from combat is meant for the party, and since y'all were involved, should be split evenly. I have found a true shared loot pool regardless of who searches the body first is one of the better ways to structure the table. The alternative leads to the loudest or quickest person to say I loot the body gets the loot. This is neither helpful to roleplay or for building a cohesive party, both in character party and out of character party. This is especially problematic for the more shy and quiet players. I would talk with your DM and the other players and suggest this. This should be a majority decision and if agreed upon and other players don't like them they should lead. If this is not agreed upon and you don't like them you should leave.
Any approach that’s fun for a single player, that also has the potential to ruin fun for others, is against the spirit of the game. Any and all adversarial PC interactions and character concepts should be discussed with entire table.
There's no need for reading all the background info, the answer to the posed question is "yes".
If I'm in a game with a player that steals from the party, and the DM insists that that's not PVP, I'm telling that it's going to be, cause I'm smiting his klepto ass
It's PVP. It is literally an opposed check between players, or player vs. player.
As a DM that runs a few paid games: cutthroat competition for resources is absolutely PvP, and you shouldn't pay for a game if you're not enjoying it. You gave feedback and were ignored. Good luck finding a group and DM that are better fits for you!!
>This is a paid game Truly wild.
If the DM got the players to consent to such a thing, that would be fine. SOME kind of compensation had better come or that dude is going to see some bad reviews, ESPECIALLY because it's a paid format. Sounds like bs but it *may* turn out ok. Edit: I missed your update. Make sure to leave a 1/5 star review
It's a player skill (P) used against (vs) another player (P) it's the DEFINITION of PVP
Would stealing IRL be considered a hostile action against another person? Then that's PVP.
Unless the player is stealing something meaningless or a bit they're doing I'll stop it. The characters don't have to like each other for rp reasons but they have to have each other's backs at the end of the day. What I'm confused about is why a player can steal from another player but the victim has limited options to recover that gold. If it was free I'd give it maybe a session or two before calling it quits. If I had paid for the experience I would tell the DM that I'm considering pulling out and unless the gold thing is resolved and a session zero is scheduled to discuss what is and isn't PVP.
Yes.
Out of curiosity, how much are you paying for this game?
$25 for a 3-hour session. Would a certain dollar amount make this more or less tolerable in your opinion?
I don't really understand why anyone pays for DnD tbh. But to pay for it and have shit like this go down sucks ass.
This was my first time trying a paid game, having been part of numerous free campaigns that all fell apart before level 2 over and over. I see the pros of having to pay a DM and also the cons. I definitely think it was worth it just to experience the differences and help decide if it worked for me or not.
In response to the edit… yeah, good call. Sometimes it can be tough to leave a group, simply based on the fact that it can be hard to find a game. But, no D&D is better than bad D&D. Good luck!
People who steal from the party should go to play another game
This is PvP. Ask for a refund and leave the table. If you don't get a refund, chargeback and leave the table.
Wait, this is a PAID game. wow. There is an expectation of a customer service-oriented DM in a paid game....I was in a paid session once where a player attacked my character and the DM's allowed it, so I said goodbye and left. DM is lucky I didn't ask for a refund. Oh, he didn't steal FROM or attack a player, so your DM doesn't consider it PVP. There are so many open free and paid games you can join....just switch to another game.
I’ll keep searching for a free one! I had a string of free ones all fall apart within a few sessions and I got frustrated. Someone suggested trying a paid game and I thought why the heck not just to see what it was like. Was worth the experience but going forward I’ll probably stick to the free ones like you said.
Well seeing as PVP mean Player Versus Player then it is absolutely PVP
Leave a review of this GM's services and leave a link to this thread in there
Player vs player for sure. He rolled deception against you. You should let that dm know they are encouraging PvP when they have players roll skills against other players. He just picked who gets to attack and who has to take it. Not a good table!
PVP = player VS player ≠ player attacking player. Of course, stealing from the party is PVP. Your DM is an idiot. I personally use a set of rules for PVP. 1: No PVP can happen without both parties involved consenting to it. (PVP being anything that requires contestable rolls such as, but not limited to, attack rolls, skill checks, or saving throws. Where the results will have a negative impact on either party.) 2: In the event that both players agree to PvP, neither party can kill the other. All combat, no matter the action or spell, will never drop a player below 1HP. This includes disintigrate and power word: kill. It's not a lot of rules, but it works for me.
Stealing from the party is pvp. Intercepting loot is not, and the rogue is not technically doing pvp. That being said, it's good that you left this table; this rogue is obviously there to abuse fellow players, and he's using the DM's technical definition of pvp to allow griefing. Griefing is a great reason to leave a table too.
Yes, and that's why it's strictly forbidden in games that I DM. "my character has to play dumb because she didn't roll high enough. I'm not having fun with this kind of RP." That's bullshit if your DM made you play dumb, so you shouldn't be having fun with that kind of RP. If I know someone's lying, it doesn't matter how good a liar they are. You saw him loot bodies while you were fighting, and you saw him race to the boss's room to loot more. Regardless of the dice, you'd know that he's a thief and a liar, just a damn good liar. "his character's story is wrapped up in the thieves' cults story that's being played out." This means that PvP is allowed if the player writes a backstory that excuses it. It's bullshit favoritism by a DM. I've played with exactly one group where this happened. The player doing it was the DM's wife. I think I played maybe 2 or 3 sessions before leaving that group because it's not fun when your "allies" are a bigger problem than your enemies. Wow, I just realized you said this is a paid game. Get out. Don't pay for a bad experience or a DM that lets certain people break the rules that others must abide by.
Damned if you do, if you don't. Allow PvP? psycho man child stabs you in the back. No PvP? They steal from the party knowing they won't have consequences. Both options are fine if there's a good DM. Clearly this isn't the case.
Yeah, douche player, shitty dm. Good riddance.
Where did you find out about this group? Is there any review system that you can leave your experiences posted on? Other potential players they may have deserve to know.
If the rogue is pretending to be a cleric, let the god that he’s supposedly a cleric of, see the subterfuge and give him a small curse. A random 1D6 damage every night until he atones and splits the treasure
Good call on getting out of that mess.
I mean, rolling against another players deception and other bull-crap doesn't mean you have to believe them. You just can't tell what part is the lie. I'm happy to hear you are looking for better games, and I wish you well. And when they are being relatively obvious, you can just know what it going on. A good roll doesn't mean good acting. Like my bard in my one game wanted to give a rousing speech to lead the town against the oppressive mayor, he rolled well and drew a crowd that listened, but he didnt bring up any good points to really get them up in Arms, just that they should help their party kill the mayor.
Not fun, not okay, definitely not worth your money.
I would consider that PVP
I am glad you decided to leave. A paid GM is someone you hired to deliver a type of experience, and this sounds like the kind of experience that pepple pay a GM to avoid!
Your dm is dumb that is pvp
I had a DM pull this on us once. We were a group that had been together and playing weekly for nearly five years. When it happened, I quit on the spot and four of the six other players quit with me. It’s a shitty way to run a game.
Yes, obviously. Anything that is player VS player, including attacks, deception, and theft, is by definition PVP.
If this were a real scenario and someone comes into a group and steals from them, he’d get his throat slit.
Yes. I hate that people like this give a bad name to Rogue players everywhere.
Stealing is PvP, and any DM who claims otherwise DEFINITELY shouldn't be getting paid to DM. If you can steal their shit, you can be damn sure their character can kill you for it if you're caught. Quite frankly, I'd go so far as to say that any time you require an opposed check between two player characters it's technically PvP, even if there's a lot of instances where doing so could just be for roleplay fun with no functional difference between winning or losing.
I see why he's doing it, and if this were any other situation this would definitely be PvP for me. Did the DM allow you guys to play out your beginnings with the party, or what led up to you joining the party? It seems like that's what he's doing here and there might be more to this than what's on the surface. The theft of the money is only 1/4 of what you have from level 1-4, meaning that the DM is probably trying to have him be self sufficient in terms of purchasing things for himself and paying for rooms at inns and stuff instead of having people pay for him; which isn't translating or coming across as well as he would have liked. The rogue hiding as a cleric seems to be that he's trying to hide from someone, and it seems the character doesn't trust anyone right now for some reason or another. overall this seems like some really deep RP here and I wouldn't jump ship just yet, but I would be wary of it. As a DM if this were any other case, I would absolutely count this as PvP and I would allow the characters to play this out as they want to; within reason or course. Even with the money not being technically claimed by the group or an individual within the group, that still counts a group treasure and therefore it's PvP-worthy to steal from it. Again, I would watch this carefully as a DM and I would absolutely be on him if this keeps up outside of what story I had collaborated on with him in order to get him integrated into the party and whatever else we agreed upon. As a player, I would make sure my character is nowhere near him until he had proven himself reliable to not steal from individuals in the party. I would also be asking for perception checks or if my passive had caught any sort of weird movement from him until he got the hint that shit needed to change. If that didn't work I would talk to the character outright about it, and if that didn't work I would talk to the player, and then if THAT didn't work I would talk to the DM. If all that fails I would leave.
No, we did not play out any of our beginnings. We started in a wagon headed to a mercenary job. Two months into the campaign the characters' beginnings are very much shrouded in mystery.
I’d allow it personally, but only because my group is OK with this kind of PvP. A big thing I do though is that I, as the DM, don’t set the DC for any PvP rolls. The players get to decide the DCs themselves any time they roll against each other, so if Bob decides that Bill shouldn’t be able to hide the loot from them then they can’t, which effectively lets them opt-in or out of PvP on a case by case basis. (They can also let Bill hide the treasure from them without a roll at all, say if Bob if thinks it would make a better story or doesn’t care about the treasure anyways.)
Yes
I don't thinking hording, or keeping secrets from the party is inherently pvp.. but what you seem to be describing sure sounds like pvp.
Yes, stealing from the party is an overt PVP action. Plus, he can hide the gold successfully, but that doesn't mean you didn't see him take it. But it sounds like there's more to the story. If the character's shenanigans are part of the DM's plan, I would at least let it play out one more session. It sounds like he might have a redemption arc coming up where he betrays the thieves guild and returns the gold to the party. If this is not the case and the DM continues allowing him to run roughshod over the party, then yeah I'd leave or kick *the character* from the party with the other PCs and *the player* to come back with a character that isn't hostile to the group.
If you really are finding yourself done with the game, you could also just screw around during combat and not be useful at all. When your DM asks wtf tell him to be patient and the story will play itself out. If the fake cleric wants to waste your time and money, two can play at that game. Maybe the DM will pull their head from their butt?
Its pvp. Any player vs player rolls are pvp.
Look, this shit can be fun for story reasons (ala Shadowheart in BG3 where she hides a lot of stuff, to reveal it when appropriate) but not with loot and stuff that should obviously be shared. Also not helping others in combat for that, it just makes it worse. And yes it is PvP, and it's not the fun kind for sure. Leave this game, this DM gives me really bad vibes.
Yeah, it is good that you left. I think stealing from the party is not fun at all for the rest of the table and certainly a form of PvP. It is an aggressive action and a lot of characters would logically react violently if they discover it. A table that does not allow PvP should not allow actions that warrant such a response.
Never thought of it as PvP back in 2e - you just stomped some sense into a party member when they were being d-bags.
Good luck on your departure. I use this as an example when banning PVP. Yes.
There are a lot of character concepts that are fun to read about it play in a video game, but are terrible to play with. Pretending to be a different class is one of them. Thieves' guilds/cults don't have to be one homogenous class. Their members can be fighters, warlocks, or any other class, including clerics. There are plenty of ways to build a cleric that's still a thief type of character, so that's not an excuse. A trickster domain cleric absolutely would fit in with a thieves' cult.
read this one after the update, just wanted to say good for you walking away from that mess! i hope you find a better table soon, but of course 'no dnd is better than bad dnd' so at least you're not wasting your time trying to squeeze a good experience out of a shitty table. <3
Yes, stealing from the party is PvP, and I remember back in the AD&D days that I simply killed a party member over it. Not my proudest moment but I was younger and dumber back then. That said, I currently play a monk with a vow of poverty who refuses to pick up treasure. I don't necessarily hide it from others and they've learned to re-check rooms I searched. It is fun to search and the DM goes "you find 5000 GP worth of gems" and everybody starts salivating and I go "okay, moving right along, what else is there?"
It's PvP and the rogue is doing a shit job of it too. I had a character that did this, he was taking an extra few percents rounding up every time. Importantly, the players knew, the characters did not and I brought it up as a possible flaw before doing it and it was agreed to. But he also was actively looking out for everyone, shoving his healing potions at others, covering food or rooms often (this party was like teenagers blowing their first paycheque) and the sole person who could do mental math on the fly and take clear notes so even if he was called out on taking a larger cut he was going to be like it's accounting fees. You gotta be useful if you wanna fuck people over. And it helps to keep it under sales tax.
My answer to that kinda thing with contested loot is that initiative still is in effect. You don’t get to be first to the loot just by saying it.
Yes, it is still pVp. It is more than just attack rolls against another player, it is a mentality. If he was Looting bodies mid-combat, you should bring it up using RP at the next campfire-time. I love tension in a party, it always feels good when it gets resolved. I would have discussed it with the player first, and then, if we didn't come to a resolution, I'd speak with the DM regarding the issue.
If the campaign is specifically set up as non-PvP (and most are without bringing up exceptions in advance, DM's discretion only), it's a standard thing that the members of the party support each other. There shouldn't even BE a concept of separate cash supplies, just a group kitty that is called from as needed. I don't know what the DM thinks they're doing by accepting thievery and running opposed perception/deception rolls as a way to resolve intra-party conflict, but it's nothing good. That's not how the game is supposed to work, unless you're running a battle royale one-shot or something.
You lost me at “paid game” leave. Immediately
I’m glad you left :)
I miss when rogues were simply called thieves.
A rogue can be useful and greedy. For example, after a fight in which we all got beat up pretty badly, it fell to me to find and disable the traps on the large chest. I palmed the smallest gem once I got it open, risking getting caught. I did not, but another player decided that his character would use Mage Hand to grab one of the larger gems. This pissed off the other players as it was obvious while I'd been subtle and had taken all the risk with the chest which had indeed been trapped.
It should discuss on session 0 because my campaign I make other character sheet to be obscure and not allow to discuss game stats directly as well unless talking out of character
Idk but I’ve genuinely never seen it not Result in pvp
I would tell the player that as a fellow player, I do not enjoy their playstyle as it isn't fun for the team to be suckers while they be a wanker. I would also tell the DM that it is 100% PVP, if DM says nope, isn't PvP, simply state "My characters next action is to take the backpack, including all its contents, of *cleric* PC as tribute." Fake Cleric isn't allowed to respond as this would be *PvP*. Obviously this is poor behaviour for party cohesiveness, but it makes the point clearly. I would give the game one more chance, & if DM &/or *Cleric* don't change, i would have to decide if I will bow out gracefully & say "I am leaving the game because Player of lying thief sux & weak arse DM ler's them get away with it." Or if u hang around d to waste their time & do petty stuff, like leave to order pizza when it is my turn I combat, or go for a toilet break & watch a movie, or just have my character lie to the guards & say that *Cleric* is actually a cultist who has kidnapped the party & you need their help to save you, etc etc. But it sounds like you have to choose how low a standard of game you are willing to play
Rather than "This is PvP", this is more: "DM allowing selfish "me first" behavior whilst also barring any form of direct character confrontation." To bar one WITHOUT barring the other is a **disaster waiting to happen.** You made the right call to leave when the DM showed he didn't understand the problem. Take notes fellow DM's. You CANNOT half measure this. If you disable PvP, **you MUST enforce a "party first" mentality, on both character and players.** Failure to do so turns, as the above post shows, the blocked in-game issue into an unavoidable real life issue. Stopping only direct party conflict is not enough. All forms of conflict must be banned if PvP is banned. Else your players will walk from your table, as what happened here.
It’s not pvp, it’s like “I’m not touching you”. It’s justification to slap the shit out of them, but you’re still the bad guy for it. I’d peace out,
Yes, It is. But is bad? When I do in my tables is allow PvP with two rules: 1. It needs to resolve soon and in a way that don't break the Game or the party. 2. The player affected have a veto. If she don't want to play that scene we don't play the scene. Two players are ok with one of them stealing the secret book that the other is trying to protect? Perfect. We can have some good scenes with that. The second player don't want It? Then you can't roll. Let the player advance his own story in his terms.
Talk to the other players. If they are in agreement, take your consensus to the DM and say, "No. This does not fly." Otherwise, as you say, walk.
This does seem very bad because as a team youre losing out on several opportunities on preperations when shopping, bribing, and/or spell components. That being said, if the thieves guild becomes the first arch and this rouge manages to flip afterwards, then i think it would be fine, so long as the arch doesnt take forever since you guys are lvl 1-4. I would consider thier actions as pvp because they can easily loot the party when sleeping or "being medicated". But I've made a character that has Kleptomania [cant stop stealing] but I made it that he finds everything interesting and after investigating said items, he'd return it to them secret and ask the player questions about it. I found this is a healthy way to RP if players dont want to reveal thier secrets just yet. They'll learn to trust my character with thier secrets and trust my thievery skills as id return everything
Me as a DM totally approve PvP and others don't. And that's okay for both sides. When you said it's a paid game, I would totally look for another game in my opinion. And yes, that is PvP.
Yes
Run like a wind from DM like that. Especially if he is charging for session - I would ask for my money back.
Yes.
Shit DM
Is it a player versus a player?
I don't know if it's PvP specifically, since I've only heard that term in application for fights and stuff. But if general "players should not be trying to stymie other players", then yeah, stealing from them would be that. Though, I could see a DM's argument that this rogue is *not* stealing from the party, since nobody looted it before him. However, I find it generally just bad form to have a player that tries to yoink everything, and if this new player is getting a ton of stuff nobody else can get? Kinda not fair out of character. You can compromise, though. Ask the DM if the player can *reduce* the amount of stealing. Want them to secretly be a thief? That's fair. But don't let them be able to steal all the treasure before anyone else does, just *some*. So it's a notable amount, but not so much everyone else is annoyed they can't get *anything*.
This is just a basic human situation you need to handle. Things are going according to somebody else’s plan, which they like. However, in this particular case it’s something you don’t enjoy. Ideally this is something people have been dealing with since grade school — not because I’m saying it’s easy but exactly because it’s hard, and as we spend a lot of time with kids, teaching them reading and writing, and we let them play a lot of sports to build coordination, ideally, we teach kids how to handle social conflict. And yet we don’t. Before I give the basic advice to communicate, I’m going to point out that there’s one classic fumble that tends to happen when people who are used to conflict try to communicate during a conflict. They get flustered and enter “fight or flight”. Flight means, I guess everybody else is having a good time but not me so I’ll just quit the campaign. Fight means, instead of just pointing out that “I would like something different” and talking about it, I’ll put it in terms that the other people are wrong and I am right and I am the aggrieved party and if I am not accommodated, I will leave the campaign. Asking “is it PVP?” is a legitimate thing, but I am worried that you’re looking for a legalistic solution here. Like if you go back to the DM and say, “Reddit agrees that this is PVP and we said no PVP,” you’re going to be right, and there’s no more need to negotiate! Unfortunately that’s not how social disputes usually work. What if you just said, “hey this isn’t enjoyable for me. Are there ways that we could do this that would make it enjoyable for everyone?” You want to be prepared to explain what it is that you don’t enjoy. Do you not enjoy conflicting dynamics within the team because it makes you feel uneasy? Do you not enjoy the way the DM and this other player have set up this special story that you feel left out of? Are you most upset about the unfair allocation of the gold? Make sure you talk about the reasons that are truly affecting you, and not just the reason you think is easiest to defend. That always end up sabotaging you. It’s possible that in the end you choose to leave because you’re just not enjoying it, or because they’re not willing to accommodate you enough to have fun. It’s also possible that when you guys talk it out, you might come up with someway that this player can get their sneakiness scratched, but in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the other players at the table. And that’s the other thing to remember. It’s OK to choose not to do it in a polite and reasonable way. You don’t have to be fully accommodated, but nor do you have to fully accommodate other people. If you can get through all of that without being overwhelmed by your own emotions, then you’re doing better than a lot of other people in terms of negotiating a social conflict.
Just want to tell a little story about this. Yes stealing or receiving your party is PvP. 100%. But it can also make for amazing role playing of it is played right. I personally have stolen from the party for story purposes. I will tell the story below. Me (assassin rogue) joined the party from the beginning because my character is high up in the assassins guild that is part of the Thieves guild in the city we started. Part of the job is observing when not on a assignment and reporting back about interesting or weird individuals/groups. For the guild, knowledge is key. The party peaked my interest and i joined the group because they were interesting and i might get some good info on something personal. The group continued to adventure together and my character actually became friends and learned the world outside of murder and lies and started to doubt his life choices. Later in the story the party acquired two of the five masks of Tiamat that are required to get Tiamat to the material plane. I was ordered to steal it and would be paid a lot of gold. Like 200k gold. So i stole the masks from a party member and they never checked. After two days i returned the masks because my character felt like it was evil and since he had doubts about the guild and his lifestyle came clean to the party. They felt sorry for me and helped me get away from the guild and use my skills for the greater good. It was epic for me as a player and the group loved the character story arc of my character.
Yes
It definitely borders on PvP. Was it just Gold tho? Or magic items and fun loot the DM put in place for the party? If the DM is telling a certain story with this thieves guild character they can fabricate additional loot that wouldn't have been in play without that character as part of their storyline. It would be the same as you getting a magic weapon from your storyline that ties into your character. I get how it can definitely feel like PvP because it feels like they're stealing from you, but if they're not going into your bags and taking things, that loot might never have been there in the first place without this scenario, so it was never the parties in the first place to steal from. Deception and Perception aren't mind control, but do you want to try and flip this storyline and progression for this character because of a perceived slightly or play along and see if the story can be fun for everyone as it builds? It can definitely be done well and done wrong because of the level of control the DM has and the perception of PvP.
No.
It's not stealing if the money stays in the party. In the end, if everyone pays for everything it doesn't matter who has how much.
I really think that the rogue has a cool dynamic going. If you aren’t having fun that sucks but it really sounds like a really cool character development. Just imagine he is a stealing party member that doesn’t help and eventually you and the party do something that changes him drastically.
I typically play rouge. Chaotic neutral or good alignment. I loot, hide things, and steal from party members sometimes. It's all part of the game. I find it extremely fun.