stop sleight of hand pickpocketing?

[Mishihari Lord]

First of all, allowing PCs to steal from other PCs is a huge mistake IMHO. It just tends to piss everyone off, and happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Your DM should SERIOUSLY reconsider this policy.

This is emphatically not the DM's job to handle, at least in his DM role. Control of the character is strictly the player's prerogative. There are a lot of ways to approach this. Out of character may work, depending on the group. "Hey guys, I'd rather not have a game where we stael from each other." In other words, ask to change the group's social contract. If you don't want this approach, then the in-game approaches people have been giving you will work.

 

[redrick]

This is emphatically not the DM's job to handle, at least in his DM role. Control of the character is strictly the player's prerogative. There are a lot of ways to approach this. Out of character may work, depending on the group. "Hey guys, I'd rather not have a game where we stael from each other." In other words, ask to change the group's social contract. If you don't want this approach, then the in-game approaches people have been giving you will work.

While I don't think it's solely the DM's job, I think the DM takes point on setting the general tone for the social contract of the game, particularly when it comes to actions that are mediated through the DM. (After all, a player character can't steal from another player character without the DM's active participation.)

If one of the players in a campaign I ran wanted to steal from another player, I would probably get a feel from the other players before moving forward with it. If players are comfortable having a slightly edgy and competitive relationship with each other, that's fine, but if the group as a whole is not down with intra-party antagonism, I would shut this sort of thing down immediately. If you can't play your character in a way that allows the game to move forward, play a new character, or leave the group.

Now, if the group as a whole has embraced antagonistic actions between player characters, so be it. Kill the rogue for stealing from you. The whole "I can pick your pockets" schtick is probably the most obnoxious form of player vs player.

 

[newrange]

That's the problem. Nobody should ever make assumptions in a game with so many different playstyles. The group didn't openly declare that we were going to equally split any found loot - not even the players. If they had put any forethought into loot distribution in the first place, they would each have an extra 12 gold in their pockets.

Further, nobody else even checked the loot before I took my action, so their characters wouldn't have any feasible justification for "taking action against" my character "for his actions." As far as those characters know, the item in question was never a part of the loot in the first place. If the players really feel bad about the situation, they can simply keep their characters in the same room as mine and/or make sure to check the contents of containers BEFORE leaving a thief in the room.

I mean, look at The Hobbit as an example. You leave the burglar out of sight with loot, and he pockets the most valuable thing around.

 

[Water Bob]

I mean, look at The Hobbit as an example. You leave the burglar out of sight with loot, and he pockets the most valuable thing around.

Yep. We had a player who favored playing rogues and thieves. He would certainly pocket stuff when nobody was looking. It was hard for me to DM as I had to not alert the other players because their PCs were not around the thief when he did this.

Plus, he'd do things like say, "You want me to go first? You want me to check for traps? OK, then, I want a bigger share. I put in more risk. You guys fight as a team. I'm all alone opening the trap laden box. I've got more risk. I want a bigger percentage."

The dude played him like...well, a thief.

 

[newrange]

Yep. We had a player who favored playing rogues and thieves. He would certainly pocket stuff when nobody was looking. It was hard for me to DM as I had to not alert the other players because their PCs were not around the thief when he did this.

Plus, he'd do things like say, "You want me to go first? You want me to check for traps? OK, then, I want a bigger share. I put in more risk. You guys fight as a team. I'm all alone opening the trap laden box. I've got more risk. I want a bigger percentage."

The dude played him like...well, a thief.

This guy gets it. Everyone else is basically saying, "Roleplay... but not really."

 

[redrick]

This guy gets it. Everyone else is basically saying, "Roleplay... but not really."

Absolutely. Role-play, but play the game. If you role-play an insufferable character who is no fun to be at the table with, or pisses everybody else off, that's on you. You can play your character at home.

It's like working as an actor — inhabit the character, but do your scene.

So, in your case, again, a lot depends on your group. You stole an item, but before anybody else even knew it existed. Cool. Probably not a big deal. Potential for some fun interplay there, if the other players are willing to go along with it. Also potential for some really unfun interplay, if the other players aren't into it. And saying, "the group didn't openly declare that we were going to split the loot beforehand" doesn't mean very much. With some people, that sort of stuff would not fly well, and it might not occur to them to bring it up.

It's like any other activity — folks have to meet in the middle. The very game-oriented player needs to learn how to have fun with the more role-player-y players who create obstacles as part of their role-playing. And the "my character told me to do it" players need to set some boundaries on their behavior and make sure that they are role-playing their character in a way that keeps the game moving forward for everybody. If you, as a player, know that Tom really, really hates people stealing his stuff, then you and Tom can work out a way for little Timmy the rogue to know he should leave Tom alone.

 

[newrange]

It's a game in which people roleplay characters. JUST like actors, the players must thoroughly portray their own characters. If people truly feel that upset about good roleplaying, they probably shouldn't be playing a roleplaying game.

 

[redrick]

It's a game in which people roleplay characters. JUST like actors, the players must thoroughly portray their own characters. If people truly feel that upset about good roleplaying, they probably shouldn't be playing a roleplaying game.

Well, actually, as an actor, your job is to perform a script which somebody else has given to you. If you show up on set, or on stage, and say, "nope, sorry, my character wouldn't do this," you are not doing your job right. Now, if, during the rehearsal process, you speak with the director or the writer and say, "I'm not sure about why my character would say this," or, "I think my character might actually do it like this instead," folks might might be able to work with that to make changes to the script or the play. Sometimes, this is not the case. Ultimately, it is the job of the actor to figure out why their character would do the things they have been scripted to do, and make that believable.

In a role-playing game, you aren't given a strict script, but you are given a certain degree of a social contract, and it's your job, as a player, to figure out, "why would my character behave in a way that fits within this social contract?" That social contract will vary from table to table, of course. With one of my groups, we like to spend a lot of time figuring out why characters would be working together around certain issues. Player characters have their own individual motivations, and they don't always see eye to eye. My rogue has tried to rob another player character before, while another PC tried to put him in handcuffs. That being said, the actions were taken very much with the idea of advancing characterization and group dynamic. If I had been successful, I think I would have gotten a few copper pieces. Our Lawful Pigheaded Good player occasionally steps out of character to make suggestions about how to "get around" his character's issues.

Other tables wouldn't tolerate that degree of lollygagging, so, at that table, my job would be to figure out how to play my character in such a way that he always showed up on time to the dungeon and played it straight with his allies. Hell, a wizard can put a geas on him if need be.

 

[Dog Moon]

Heh, too bad you folks are not higher level. I think a fine warning would be to cut his hand off, kill him, Zombie his body, have the cleric resurrect (whichever level allows it) using the hand. The zombie is a constant visual warning of what happens next time you suspect he is stealing from you.

Otherwise, just cut the hand off and animate the hand. It can guard your stuff. Or maybe that is the trapping for your Alarm spell - cut the head off some critter and animate it. It gives the warnings if something bad happens. That would be a fun creepy thing to spring on the thief the next time they rummage in your stuff.

Actually, considering that this incident happened about 2-1/2 years ago, I'm pretty sure they are higher level by now. Assuming the campaign is still going.

 

[newrange]

If everybody wants to play a nice, pleasant game where the characters all help each other out, The DM should just require his/her players to roll either lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good characters. If a DM allows pure neutrality, chaotic neutrality, or any variation of evil, he/she should be fine with such characters adhering to said alignments.

Players these days claim to enjoy roleplaying games, yet they act like babies when someone actually adheres to a character alignment. So, a chaotic neutral thief pocketed an unseen item for his own good; should you really be all that surprised? I mean, that's about as in-character as it can get. Surely, players and GMs alike should possess the maturity to allow accurate roleplaying within a game that is designed for roleplaying.