• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Looting during combat wtf ?

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
There is a spectrum. Treating every frustration like it is a dire circumstance is problematic for the reasons I have addressed. You're not recognizing the difference. Look at the initial post again. Really read what the player is saying.

There is nothing in it that indicates to me that it can't be addressed completely and satisfactorily within the game in a way that is good for everyone. My guidance to that player is to attempt to do so. Talk it out in character and see what happens.
Clearly you've chosen to continue to engage, and do so with a silly strawman that says you have to bring this up immediately, interrupting the game, and that I'm recommending doing so for any level of disagreement. Please stop this stupid.

The OP is clearly upset enough to come to strangers to ask for advice. This isn't a trivial or small matter, or a whim. It's enough that the OP is thinking about it between games and wants the behavior to stop. This is prime material for a before the game discussion, which is what I recommended.

So, again, if all you have is insisting that the game be protected first and a string of strawmen, please do not engage with me again.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It is you not "your character" that decides what kind of character to bring in in the first place.

If you bring in a disruptive, inter-party conflict causing character - the resulting disruption and conflict is 100% on you.

For ex. If the party is 100% elves and you bring in, as you're new character, a PC who's whole deal is hates elves and tries to kill them on sight - the resulting problems are on you.
Agreed, and in theory I'd know that going in. But if I've got a not-disruptive character and something in the fiction (another PC, or an adventure element, or an NPC, whatever) happens which that character would react to differently than I-as-player would react, it's the character's reaction I'm in theory committed to follow rather than my own.

A lighter-weight example: a solid decent Lawful character who doesn't like jokers, who ends up in a party containing a practical joker. I-as-player might find the jokes hilarious and be laughing the whole time, yet to be true to my character I have to react negatively as that character would - perhaps even to the point of leaving the party. As Gornath the Fighter I'd be all grumpy-voice "My sword here says you either stop the jokes or leave the party - choose now." while as me-the-player I'd probably pass the joker's player a quiet note "Bill, this is great! Keep it up!"

As for your example of the elf-hater: I've seen this very thing play out. A character (not mine) came in with his main schtick being he hated Elves and wanted to wipe them off the planet; and in the party were some long-established Elves (also not mine). Much out-of-character hilarity ensued as this guy's ideas on how to expunge Elves from the world got ever more extreme and wacko, while in-character the arguments raged and characters plotted (not much ever came of all the plots though). Eventually the player left for unrelated reasons, and that character was - to the Elves' great relief - retired.
 

Mort

Legend
Agreed, and in theory I'd know that going in. But if I've got a not-disruptive character and something in the fiction (another PC, or an adventure element, or an NPC, whatever) happens which that character would react to differently than I-as-player would react, it's the character's reaction I'm in theory committed to follow rather than my own.

Sure, but these things are rarely binary.

You can react appropriately but with an eye toward maintaining fun and finding reasons both PCs can still be in the party.
A lighter-weight example: a solid decent Lawful character who doesn't like jokers, who ends up in a party containing a practical joker. I-as-player might find the jokes hilarious and be laughing the whole time, yet to be true to my character I have to react negatively as that character would - perhaps even to the point of leaving the party. As Gornath the Fighter I'd be all grumpy-voice "My sword here says you either stop the jokes or leave the party - choose now." while as me-the-player I'd probably pass the joker's player a quiet note "Bill, this is great! Keep it up!"

Well sure, if both players are henning fun that's great. But you can keep up tmtd fun bickering without raising it to antagonistic levels.
As for your example of the elf-hater: I've seen this very thing play out. A character (not mine) came in with his main schtick being he hated Elves and wanted to wipe them off the planet; and in the party were some long-established Elves (also not mine). Much out-of-character hilarity ensued as this guy's ideas on how to expunge Elves from the world got ever more extreme and wacko, while in-character the arguments raged and characters plotted (not much ever came of all the plots though). Eventually the player left for unrelated reasons, and that character was - to the Elves' great relief - retired.

Again if everyone is ACTUALLY having fun great. But if the player in question is doing the shtick with the intention of being a disruptive jerk, that's a different story.
 

cmad1977

Hero
I'll strongly disagree right back. While there are clearly situations we need to deal with as players that are impacting the story, this is a situation where a solution should start in the game if at all possible - and it seems incredibly likely to me that it is as discussed below.

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Stories have ups and downs. As players, we get invested in the situation. That is a hallmark of a good game. We, as people, will be impacted by the game as our PCs face struggles - sometimes of their own making, sometimes from fellow PCs, often from NPCs or monsters. That does not mean that we should halt the story and revise the situation out of character every time the story impacts us as players in a negative way. The struggle to overcome negative situations is part of telling a good story. And it is desired.

Go look on your character sheet. What do you see right beneath Bonds? Flaws. Characters are meant to have flaws. Flaws are things that make them problematic. Look at the sample flaws in the PHB. Read them. PCs are intended to have some of these types of behaviors - to start. They'll have a chance to grow and evolve over these flaws.

This obviously has limits, and those limits are going to differ from table to table and situation to situation. So the DM and player need to make the call here if a player raises an issue. However, if you read the OP, the OP is talking about what the character should do - in game - to respond to the situation. The starting point for the player is in game, and I believe that if their first inclination is to address it in game, we are not over that threshold here.

For a further example of what I am discussing: Go back and look at Critical Role campaign 2 as another example where something similar took place. While the Mighty Nein broke into a politician's home to frame them (ahhh ... heroes), Caleb found some scrolls. While the group knew it was important not to leave a trace (which they'd already messed up), Caleb wanted the scrolls. It was part of his PC's personality and backstory to be desperate for power (at that point in time, at least). He took the scrolls, and his loyal ally Nott (who also needed him to become more powerful for selfish reasons) had his back. The rest of the PCs present were insistent that he leave them behind. Despite argument, he took them. This situation was handled by the PCs in the moment, discussed by the PCs in character down the road, and resulted in conflict that played a role in the development of the PCs. It was a fairly significant story development that forced them to consider what being in a group meant and triggered character growth.

Terrible advice. Don’t do this OP.
 


Looting in the middle of a fight is completely nonsensical behavior. Trying to resolve this issue in game through roleplaying will only validate the behavior.

Have an out of game discussion about why the other players are doing this and why they think it makes sense. Either you'll reach an agreement that the time for looting is after combat, or it turns out that the other players want to play a D&D game that's more like an MMORPG than "realistic" fantasy. Maybe other players looting in combat isn't such a big deal anymore once you get used to the idea that the game isn't supposed to make sense.
 

marketingman

Explorer
Hey guys, little new to DnD, about 6 months in and I need some advice. I play a warlock ( only caster in group ) and try to maximize my dmg and spare my party members from aoe attacks, as well as ‘spare the dying’ cantrip and my owl familiar as a healing potion deliverer. But even though I play for the group I’ve noticed lately the others are looting the fallen and chests while others are still in combat or unconscious…
Should I get greedy, start being careless with Fireballs n aoe’s … begin ‘searching the room’ while melee pc’s occupy the monsters?

One of our players also dm’s our other campaign and we rotate week to week.
I have taken to having the bad guys fake death and attack the person who comes to search the bodies.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top