In Character Embezzlin` - Another Taboo?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1) The DM shouldn't be controlling PCs unless they are dominated.

Agreed. And I haven't suggested otherwise. If a player wants his character to steal from other characters that is the players decision.

2) The DM should be impartial to how the PCs divide their spoils.

Agreed except when failing to get involved in it becomes as problematic as doing so - just as previously noted.

The DM should never force either of these two situations, else they run the risk of playing the game for the Players.

Agreed. However the situation of greater DM involvement is forced by PLAYER actions.

That is just as much the responsibility of the Players. If they can't handle this, they shouldn't have started it in the first place.

Players don't always do what is in the best interest of ALL players or the campaign in general. It is then the DM's responsibility to get involved as deeply as needed to keep things under control.

It bothers me a bit that people's first solution to in-game problems is to kill the offender.

Which is why immediate, greater-than-normal DM involvement is a good idea. Whether it's well-roleplayed or not you cannot ignore the fact that it comes down to one player depriving other players of the rewards for their characters to which they ARE entitled. It's a situation that is rife with potential misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and heated disagreements.

 

[Romnipotent]

Whether it's well-roleplayed or not you cannot ignore the fact that it comes down to one player depriving other players of the rewards for their characters to which they ARE entitled.

Just as a note; the hobgoblin I had thought he was entitled to more gold... I personally won't steal from my friends, but the character would and did. He was better than them, in an OOTS way "I have a +LA! I'm Inherently better." Out of character the players voiced objections and I told them "If you find out in character then we'll deal with it there, but dont worry, he's not taking much anyway." then they'd orchestrate ways to find out, I'd bluff, they'd sense motive and I'd walk off making them feel guilty for accusing me. Overall he thought the idea I was stealing was funny, perfect for the character, but metagamed and was annoyed he was getting less, it all sorted itself out when I died and another character started to take over... just more vigorously.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I dont see how its immature, its just something that may be done.

I'd point out again how people are noting this can and is done without bothering to inform the DM. When a PLAYER is given responsibility for tracking party funds it does not mean that the other players are giving his CHARACTER a license to steal if he feels like it. At the VERY least the DM needs to be informed what the character is doing. NOTHING the characters do is EVER allowed to be kept secret from the DM.

And again, note also the reactions frequently being suggested for the other players - kill the character, nearly kill the character, evict him from the party, etc. These are things that can VERY easily spiral out of control and not just disrupt the game but create angry players. It is something that the DM needs to keep on top of.

Because it is clear that players consider this to be a free benefit of merely playing a rogue or even just a greedy character it is clear that they are NOT thinking about the larger consequences. Again, IME, mature players have frequently experienced having treasure stolen from their characters by other PC's and know that is does NOT generate responses of, "Oh you're so clever and roleplaying so well I welcome the opportunity to let your character get richer at the expense of all the other PC's including mine." No, it generates responses of, "You jerk! That's MY 100 gp's! I'm killing his character in his sleep on the next watch." "Oh no you're not! I insist on a chance to wake up before he can do it - or better yet I insist on a bluff/sense motive check so that my character figures out what he's up to and kills HIS character before he can kill mine!"

That's what I mean by "immature".

I can't see how the party is supposed to be happy and totally collaborative like you've suggested.

I'm not saying they MUST be. I'm saying that that is the BASIC level of understanding in D&D - the PC's cooperate and like each other. Variations and even direct opposite approaches exist but when they do it is a VERY different game. Once again I reiterate that if you're going to allow that approach to play then AT THE OUTSET, right when PC's are created and introduced into the game it must be clearly stated and understood that the basic assumptions of trust and cooperation among PC's do not apply.

The in character tensions made for hilarious arguements, but the fights were mostly verbal or non lethal.

Just because your players handle the fallout maturely doesn't mean it's all that good an idea in the first place, or that it isn't a significant potential problem for others.

Can you tell me why Greed isn't valid enough reason?

Again, not all character concepts are equally valid. For the same reason that players are not allowed to throw an Evil PC into a party of Good PC's and then start killing them simply because his alignment allows it, simply declaring that your character is greedy does NOT give you freedom to potentially disrupt the game by denying other PC's their due treasure. Just because your PC is greedy doesn't mean that you have a RIGHT to roleplay that greed in a way that is unnecessarily disruptive.

How is this meta gaming?

Start with a PC. The PC has good diplomacy and negotiation skills and is thus allowed to do the buying/selling/deal-making for the party. Accordingly it is quite common that the player of that PC is given responsibility for keeping track of the cash. It's simply practical from a meta-game perspective. Now the player realizes that because as a PLAYER he controls the cash for the party he can simply play accounting tricks AS A PLAYER in order to embezzle moeny rather than, say, tell the DM what he intends to do. Naturally, a good DM would then have to reply to the player that he can't just start marking off money as long as the other PLAYERS don't notice. If the PC is truly doing this IN-GAME, then the actions must be handled IN-GAME. Other PC's are thus not ASSUMED to be blindly trusting of this PC who it is repeatedly noted is "Greedy". The DM then gets to decide if the stealing PC is able to keep his theft secret, if other CHARACTERS are given any cause to be suspicious, and so forth. Just because a PLAYER can easily get away with it doesn't mean the CHARACTER gets to get away with it without any in-game indications other than "My character is greedy/a rogue".

That's what I mean by meta-gaming.

The rogue (or really ANY other class except Paladin) in game may need to pay off the theives guild to leave the group alone, or the corrupt guards. Maybe the character has (as mentioned) a debt that needs payments made to avoid being hunted

Yeah all that's as may be, but then you're doing exactly what I said was necessary - providing an in-game impetus for the character to steal from other PC's.

 

[Wraith Form]

I wouldnt be in the slightest bit offended OOC if a rogueish character skimmed a few gold peices out of the pot now and then.

Heh heh heh--yeah, I'd be more surprised if they didn't do that--it's pretty much expected behavior. (Heck, last game our Warlock did that, and he's not even a rogue-type--lol.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Agreed. And I haven't suggested otherwise. If a player wants his character to steal from other characters that is the players decision.

You admit, though, to forcing the player to distribute the spoils equally. Since his character is actually the one diviying up the loot, you are effectively controlling the PC.

Agreed except when failing to get involved in it becomes as problematic as doing so - just as previously noted.

No exceptions. Failing to get involved never becomes problematic.

Agreed. However the situation of greater DM involvement is forced by PLAYER actions.

You keep saying that, but I don't understand. Telling the Player what to do is the same as controlling the PC. "Bob, make your fighter run this round," isn't different from "Bob's fighter runs away this round."

Players don't always do what is in the best interest of ALL players or the campaign in general. It is then the DM's responsibility to get involved as deeply as needed to keep things under control.

If you think a Player is acting selfish or somesuch, then in game solutions are not the answer. Talking to the Player and telling them that the others don't appreciate his actions is a much better solution to the situation than controlling his PC.

That's what I mean by "immature".

Noone is advocating Players skimming money when taking notes out of character. That's kind of like a Player who adds 100 gp to every figure the DM gives him. Yes, that might be immature. In character taking the money, though, isn't. Especially when said aloud so that everyone can hear what you're doing and noone feels robbed.

You arn't stealing from the Players. You are stealing from the PCs. Big difference here.

Just because your players handle the fallout maturely doesn't mean it's all that good an idea in the first place, or that it isn't a significant potential problem for others.

I agree. If a group isn't mature enough to handle it, they shouldn't do it. But, a DM using heavy handed techniquest to keep it down isn't the answer. Note I said mature enough. Labeling people who have fun with this kind of thing with no problems as immature seems to be mislabeling.

You keep bringing up meta-gaming and such which noone is advocating. You arn't arguing with us. You're arguing with some straw man that doesn't exist and it isn't helping whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I agree. If a group isn't mature enough to handle it, they shouldn't do it. But, a DM using heavy handed techniquest to keep it down isn't the answer. Note I said mature enough. Labeling people who have fun with this kind of thing with no problems as immature seems to be mislabeling.

You don't find it odd to declare "people who have fun with this kind of thing with no problems as immature" is mislabeling, while not two sentences up, you imply that people who don't have fun with this kind of thing are somehow less mature than those who do?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I have no idea how one PC screwing over the others could be considered an important cog in the game. But the (current) ranger player in my game seemed to agree with you. "That's just what halfling rogues do!"

I'll admit, though, that I didn't start playing D&D seriously until 3rd edition. I ran a few one-shot 2nd-edition games in college, and owned (but didn't heed) the original boxed sets when I was in grade school. And all of that was with close friends, not really a part of "D&D culture." Guess I missed out on the tradition, if that is indeed the case.

I've been playing D&D "seriously" for about a quarter-century now, and this "tradition" has never been a part of my experience.

I've met a few people who do buy into it, but they're not the type of people I choose to play with. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they're generally the kind of people who role-play caricatures rather than characters.

 

[drowdude]

It all depends on the tone of the campaign, as well as the dynamics of the group in which you are playing. If you are gaming with a group of friends who aren’t going to take such actions personally, and it is appropriate to the tone of the campaign as well as something that fits the character's personality; then it is fine IMHO.

On the other hand, if you are in a group that consists mostly of "gaming acquaintances" then it would be best to leave your character's inclinations out of the equation to avoid hard feelings.

The campaign in which I embezzled from the party funds, I was playing with my wife, my children’s godfather, and a handful of close friends.
I actually had hoped that the paladin would find out just so we could have THAT conversation

In the end though, most of the money I did take ended up getting put towards disposable items and whatnot, that generally ended up being used to the party’s benefit; so it was sort of a wash I suppose…

 

[ThirdWizard]

You don't find it odd to declare "people who have fun with this kind of thing with no problems as immature" is mislabeling, while not two sentences up, you imply that people who don't have fun with this kind of thing are somehow less mature than those who do?

Individuals who know their fellow players will have a problem with it and do it anyway despite the knowlege that they are acting in a way which will upset their fellows, I would label as immature.

Individuals who know their fellow players will have a problem with it and refrain from doing this kind of thing even though they think it would be fun because they know the other players will be upset by it, I would label as mature.

So what I mean by immature, is knowing it will be a problem and still going through with it anyway. Or, actually cheating at the game. That is immature, too.