D&D 5E Looting during combat wtf ?

[Rune]

With regard to responding at the table:

Is “Dude, not cool!” still a thing people say? If so, maybe try it?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I would say your group members have been trained well by the video games they play, where a single click collects all the loot from a body, and then it is on to the next target a second later. So unless you like playing a tabletop game like it is a PC/console game, everyone needs to have a talk about how much time checking for and collecting loot actually takes in-game.

 

[Lanefan]

I strongly disagree with this given the OP, and here's why: the player is upset here, not the character.

Ayup - many's the time I've been seriously pissed off as a player by something done in-game, but to be true to my character I just have to suck it up if going along with the situation is what my character would do.

I've role-played myself right out of games this way; games that I-as-player otherwise didn't want to leave.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ayup - many's the time I've been seriously pissed off as a player by something done in-game, but to be true to my character I just have to suck it up if going along with the situation is what my character would do.

I've role-played myself right out of games this way; games that I-as-player otherwise didn't want to leave.

This shouldn't happen. A social contract that requires you to remain silent is unhealthy and needs to be changed or left. The game is not an agreement where you have to put up with this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game.

Oh, lord, here we go again.

 

[Mort]

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.

The OP stated he is new to D&D and that this game is only 6 months old. He's trying to resolve it "in game" because the other players are looting "in game" but the player is the one that's upset, not his character.

If the player is upset, especially in a new game, he should bring it up above game and see where the other players actually stand. Working out player issues through your character is not a good place to go!

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.

The players involved have all been friends and playing together for a LONG time (as opposed to about 6 months). They have had a long time to establish the player/character divide and know what they are comfortable with - Liam and Sam particularly are good friends who are simply NOT going to offend each other in game.

If you're going to bring in Critical Role, a much better example is the players' reactions (in campaign 1) to the player of Tiberius. You could tell the players and DM were visibly irritated by his antics to the point where they (professional actors) were having a difficult time keeping their expressions in check on camera. They clearly did not keep it "in game" as by episode 28 he was out.

If a player is uncomfortable with the actions going on in game, it needs to be brought up out of game and addressed.

 

[jgsugden]

You've badly mistaken me. I'm saying that the discussion should happen at the table rather than actions taken in the game, not who's right and wrong. And I think that shunting real life interpersonal interactions onto a game not a healthy approach.

Further, I think the idea that it's the GM's job to monitor the interactions of other adults and be the authority figure at the table is very unhealthy as well. Just because a person is willing to take on the GM's role in a game does not qualify them as the right person to handle interpersonal issues in real life. Nor should it obligate them to. I stridently believe that this blurring of authority from a game role to real life and the placing of the GM as the de facto authority for real life issues at the table is a primary cause of a lot of the dysfunction our hobby experiences. It disempowers players in the social group. It's quite simple to let everyone know that they have the ability and even duty to raise concerns at the table level about play, and to have a reasoned discussion without being told what will happen by the GM -- again, a person selected usually for reasons that have nothing to do with managing social situations.

I didn't say it is the DM's job. I said this is a character interaction, and that the players can resolve it in game. Again, that was the first impulse of the author. They asked what their character should do (or he flans to launch a fireball into the room with hid S&S group - that should be discouraged).

If we stop a game to have people speak for themselves about everything that their characters are doing you will ruin the vermisilitude of the game by slaughtering the flow.

This is not a situation where a player is directly offending another player with offensive language. This is not a player being lewd to another player under the guise of a PC interaction. This is not cruelty. This is PCs being greedy - something that we clearly encourage in the rules in the flaws section of PCs. This is something the PCs play in this game because it is a designed option within the game encouraged by the design of the game and, unless there is a player with an unusual situation involved, is not offensive - just frustrating.

 

[jgsugden]

...If a player is uncomfortable with the actions going on in game, it needs to be brought up out of game and addressed.

So, is your position that it is impossible for the situation to be resolved in character in a way that makes the player happy?

If you're going to bring in Critical Role, a much better example is the players' reactions (in campaign 1) to the player of Tiberius. You could tell the players and DM were visibly irritated by his antics to the point where they (professional actors) were having a difficult time keeping their expressions in check on camera. They clearly did not keep it "in game" as by episode 28 he was out.

This is a horrible comparison, and you do not know the full extent of that situation. However, they did address the in game situations in game. They addressed the larger situation out of the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are not right or wrong answers here, just suggestions. There are ways to handle this sort of thing in-game. There are ways to handle this sort of thing out-of-game. Only the OP knows the full situation, all the background, and the personalities/relationships involved.

 

[Lanefan]

This shouldn't happen.

Why not? I'm there to play a character, not play myself. I can be myself the rest of the week.

A social contract that requires you to remain silent is unhealthy and needs to be changed or left. The game is not an agreement where you have to put up with this.

Bugger the "social contract". If I'm to be true to my character I have to put my-as-player feelings aside and instead act on what it would be feeling.

The alternative is that I'll end up projecting my own feelings into my character, which - while it can certainly be great catharsis sometimes - largely defeats the purpose of playing someone other than myself.