Hello and thanks for any input. 

Basically there is someone at my table who came into acquisition of a +2 strength book. The one that raises stats above 20. Some clarity of context regarding this player

Hes a monk who’s best stat is dex

Enjoys authentic naturally occurring RPing

Rarely talks as a character and the player has martyr complex making addressing disagreements volatile and is met with justifications over apologies.

Has voiced many times that he doesn’t know why he’s even here because he’s not important both as a player and PC.

——

So as I’ve said he acquired this book. Our warlock noticed it was magical and wanted to identify it, to which the player in question wanted to know why. It has been a standard that all items should be identified and our warlock even attempted to rp the reason saying it could be cursed and best to be sure. Yet the player persistently refused, asking for reasons and giving justifications. Eventually the lock gave up. The player justifying his choice by saying “it’s a book about weight training and it’s mine”. He could have rp’d a reason for his adamant stance but he didn’t even bother. So out the window goes “I like natural occurring rp moments”

This player has two issues one way or the other that I see and none of them make him look good.

1. He’s hiding behind “natural rping” to excuse toxic playing *why should I give this book to the Paladin because it’s min/max sound?* To justify improving his own character over the benefit to the party. That’s like me, a Rogue, taking a red staff I find with + 3 to hit with wizard spells and keeping it because it matches my socks. Basically “It’s what my character would do” stance 

2. His PC doesn’t trust the other PCs and wants to act solo as he sees fit. FYI this is an almost 3 Irl year game and 6 months in game.

What would be your approach? I’m thinking of just asking directly, but again. Fragile feels and expertise in deflection.

I generally avoid saying something is toxic behaviour based on a description by someone else in the party…. But this hits a lot of very serious red flags to the point where “two sides of the story” seems less likely to be as big a factor. 

You have a few options:

1. Talk to your player candidly and in a manner that works for you.  It’s a bit hard to tell you how to properly talk with this player - every group and player is different, and each DM has different confidence levels and skills for how much they can push a player in these kinds of “Come to Bahamut” moments. I expect - and do not take this the wrong way - that you are probably not very confident in confrontation, since you are asking strangers on the internet how to solve a group-specific problem.  In such a case, your first priority would be making sure you can have the conversation in a way you feel comfortable with, while still being firm.  That’s a decision you will really need to make based on yourself and your group.

2. Solve the problem with roleplaying and conspiring with another player (if you trust them not to get the word back to the problem player).  The warlock knows that the monk is hiding something potentially dangerous - and the fact that the monk is hiding the book makes it more suspicious. 

So have your stealth character write you a note saying they are pickpocketing the book at the Warlock’s request. Have that player roll slight of hand. Measure their role against the passive of the monk, and you might be able to remove the book.  I would do all that off camera or via written notes, so the monk can’t “well actually I…” the situation. 

You also can cheat on the role to guarantee they beat the monk’s passive, but that’s up to you and your players.

Ignore this; was based on mistaken assumption you were the DM, which your post seems to indicate.  Frankly, all this advice becomes much worse from the player perspective, but cheating is only ever acceptable by the DM (and that can be a bit of a grey zone); never by a playerZ

3. Make the book cursed.  They don’t want the Warlock to check for curses?  Enjoy having +2 str and -1 to everything else!  This will probably feel retaliatory to that player and might cause some trouble.  

4. Just ask them to leave the party.  If they don’t want to be there and want everyone else to be miserable, that is only going to get worse the longer they stay. 

Thanks for the input, it’s really hard to stay neutral at times since this is a play among players issue. But I don’t want to be deterred from giving nice things over an issue like this. Luckily the other players let it go but was still a rude thing from their perspective. I just don’t want a habit to develop

Really, the description sounds a lot like a "but that's what my character would do" situation, which is always a pain. So, I'd say I agree with the above poster's "talk to your player" option, but not so much the rest. As described, this is a problem with the player, not the character. You solve player problems by dealing with the player. Punishing the character is pretty passive aggressive. Moreover, it's not likely to solve much, as that type of player will often just continue on with "naturally role playing" and probably be oblivious to the lesson you are trying to teach.

Usually, you just need to be blunt, and tell them that while they should certainly play in a way that's fun for them, that only works until it starts making the game not fun for others, and that's what's happening here. It will be an uncomfortable conversation. The player may get angry and leave the group. But you can have the conversation now, or you can let the player keep making things un-fun for everyone else for a while, and then have it later. 

Fair point, this has been a tolerated thing for awhile and suggestions for him to step away have been put up from time to time but he sticks around. I suppose talking is the best I can try, it certainly beats addressing it in game somehow

Quote from AlexMarheaves >>

Fair point, this has been a tolerated thing for awhile and suggestions for him to step away have been put up from time to time but he sticks around. I suppose talking is the best I can try, it certainly beats addressing it in game somehow

D&D at its forefront is a social thing first and a game second.  You've been playing with this dude for over 3 years so I have to assume theres more than just pure tolerance when it comes to your relationship with the guy.  Xalthu speaks to the "Thats what my character would do" which is just a shitty justification for "I'm not going to do it." if there isn't a real conversation about why its what the character would do. 

At this point though, it's not a player problem but rather a table problem and it needs a table conversation and the DM needs to be on board at least with having it.  If they aren't?  It's just full stop at that point and move on.  If they are, then you talk it out. By nature this is a confrontation and maybe this person just isn't great at it?  Just because someone is confrontational and defensive doesn't mean they like being there.  Talk about the book, what it means to other characters and offer up solutions to it.  Maybe theres a trade of items.  Maybe theres a future favor owed in game(and ONLY in game since this is an in game item).  Maybe there is just the acceptance that this is his item: Monks still have plenty viable reasons to want STR, as its a main save for them and athletics is probably in their wheelhouse.

Thanks for the input, it’s really hard to stay neutral at times since this is a play among players issue. But I don’t want to be deterred from giving nice things over an issue like this. Luckily the other players let it go but was still a rude thing from their perspective. I just don’t want a habit to develop

You're already past habits.  It's been 3.5 years.  I can't stress this that you're way past the point of prevention and now you're at the point of attempted course correction which is why its tricky.  It's also why you have to address it with more kid gloves and grace than maybe you're used to.  

Set your tables properly before the conversation.  "Hey man, we're out of game right now so I want to talk about the strength book you got.  I want this conversation to be fair and I'll be transparent, I think maybe it should go to someone else but I didn't want this to start without you knowing my intent.  I don't think it's fair to you to just go give it up, so let's talk.  You can go first or we can talk first its completely up to you, but I want to hear your side from your perspective on why you want the book, both from you and your characters point of view.  Then we'll talk about who else here wants the book for the same reasons and we'll all come to a decision together.  Does that sound fair?  Can we talk about this?"

If they completely shut that shit down with zero chance?  Then you as a table need to figure out how you want your table dynamic to work because if you're playing a game with someone who doesn't want open honest dialogue you've got a ticking time bomb waiting to happen.

Well for additional info my DM has players with unique social issues. In his words “If I try solving all the problems with other players I’ll never stop talking”

He has megatons of patience, but his scalpel approach sometimes feels Redundant and we’ve had many one on ones. As a player it really isn’t my business or interest. For me as an artificer alchemist I can pass on strength no problem even though I’m -9. But my other player recently went paladin and he’s been gone for two months. Maybe I’m just tired of this woah is me mentality of it all from him and wanna drop some hard facts on him. I’m sure many may suggest that right there is the real meat and potatoes issue but for the sake of staying on topic I was just wanting to affirm my feelings were justified and it feels based on feed back that a direct but considerate approach is the best bet

Quote from AlexMarheaves >>

Well for additional info my DM has players with unique social issues. In his words “If I try solving all the problems with other players I’ll never stop talking”

He has megatons of patience, but his scalpel approach sometimes feels Redundant and we’ve had many one on ones. As a player it really isn’t my business or interest. For me as an artificer alchemist I can pass on strength no problem even though I’m -9. But my other player recently went paladin and he’s been gone for two months. Maybe I’m just tired of this woah is me mentality of it all from him and wanna drop some hard facts on him. I’m sure many may suggest that right there is the real meat and potatoes issue but for the sake of staying on topic I was just wanting to affirm my feelings were justified and it feels based on feed back that a direct but considerate approach is the best bet

Depends on how that person playing the Paladin feels too then.  If they really want the STR book, they need to step up and address it.  If they don't because they're too afraid to address the player then they need to address the DM.  Issues or not, its always going to revolve around a conversation and the vibe of the table.  Sometimes the vibe check doesn't pass and then  it's onto next steps.

It's either that or you find that maybe you're not the one passing the vibe check of everyone else and bounce.  

I had a player exactly like this.  It was a cousin so it's not like I could get mad and boot him from my life.  He was "it's all about me" in game and in real life too.

I feel like if he got his hands on the book then it's his unless the other characters want to try to convince him to give it away.  My other players would ask for it if they wanted it though and try to explain why it is more beneficial to them than him.

If he wouldn't bargain then the next time a treasure was to be found I would make sure he wasn't the one finding it first.  And often I would add an item he would want that is useless to other characters and then they could trade with him.  One time the newly found item was just sold even though my cousin wanted it.  He wanted to complain but realized that he deserved this because of his own actions.

Going to raise a counterpoint here - just because the book is 'better' in the paladin's hands does not necessarily mean the monk is obligated to turn it over.  Generally I would say that what The Party finds is meant to go to The Party, and a Tome of Swoleitude would go to the character most in need.  But it sounds like this monk may have found the tome while, for whatever reason, acting alone. If so, perhaps he doesn't care for the thought of yielding his own treasure to others, especially when the party may or may not be reciprocating.

Simply cautioning that there might be more to this than a guy being a jerk over loot.  Something about this situation as described doesn't read right to me. 

I'm in Yurei's camp, quite honestly, and my metagaming spidey senses are tingling. 

If this book has yet to be identified, how do you know it's a Manual of Gainful Exercise that grants a +2 to strength? If the answer is "the monk suddenly got stronger" then that is meta-knowledge that has no bearing on the game. The fact that it was later disclosed to be magical is kind of irrelevant, as the monk was the one who found it and has rights to it. I would further argue that trying to pressure someone into giving it up simply because it isn't the most optimal choice is bad form. It's not like a monk can't benefit from boosted athletics checks and strength saves.

There does seem to be a norm in the party of identifying and doling out magic items to the people most likely to benefit from them. However, if the DM intended another character to find and use the tome, and the DM knew this player doesn't like to share (which after 3 years, how can you not?), then the DM should have created a scenario wherein the book could only fall into the "right" hands - or at least not the monk's. While there's some degree of selfishness on the monk's part, I don't think anyone's hands are clean in this situation. It could be handled better on all fronts. 

Does any choice with regard to the book move the plot forward?

"Basically there is someone at my table who came into acquisition of a +2 strength book. The one that raises stats above 20. "

So if it came into his possession then it is his. Unless your group has established some sort of "everything anyone in party finds is wholly party property, not per individual" rule before hand, then this is the monk's item.

"Enjoys authentic naturally occurring RPing

Rarely talks as a character and the player has martyr complex making addressing disagreements volatile and is met with justifications over apologies.

Has voiced many times that he doesn’t know why he’s even here because he’s not important both as a player and PC."

Irrelevant.

"So as I’ve said he acquired this book. Our warlock noticed it was magical and wanted to identify it, to which the player in question wanted to know why. It has been a standard that all items should be identified and our warlock even attempted to rp the reason saying it could be cursed and best to be sure. "

Just because it has been a standard doesn't mean it must be so everytime. It's the monk's item. If he doesn't want it identified, he doesn't have to.

He can also identify it himself because magic items feel magical when handled, can be identified on a short rest, and it is a book filled with information about exercises that intend to increase strength. So he doesn't really need it identified, it would be obvious even without metagaming what it is.

"Yet the player persistently refused, asking for reasons and giving justifications. Eventually the lock gave up. The player justifying his choice by saying “it’s a book about weight training and it’s mine”. He could have rp’d a reason for his adamant stance but he didn’t even bother. So out the window goes “I like natural occurring rp moments”"

With due respect this sounds like he was trying to RP and got annoyed when the lock persisted unreasonably. This is how it should have gone:

Lock: Can I identify that for you, it might be cursed?
Monk: No thanks.
Lock: Understandable, have a nice day.

And that should have been the end of it. It sounds like that wasn't the case.

"This player has two issues one way or the other that I see and none of them make him look good."

Gonna disagree as so far the only issue I've seen you describe is a PC who wants his character to use the item his character found and you all being a bunch of metagame-heads giving him a hard time because you want it for the Paladin despite it not being your call at all. But sure, let's see what issues you're going to invent here.

"1. He’s hiding behind “natural rping” to excuse toxic playing *why should I give this book to the Paladin because it’s min/max sound?* To justify improving his own character over the benefit to the party. That’s like me, a Rogue, taking a red staff I find with + 3 to hit with wizard spells and keeping it because it matches my socks. Basically “It’s what my character would do” stance "

Ah so "I don't like his choice so he's toxic!".  Your attitude is just woeful. If he wants to use an item to improve his own character - he can. That is the point of such items. Some use them to increase max stats, some use them to increase in areas that are lacking they'd prefer to improve. This is perfectly fine. Your rogue example is a false equivalency: the staff offers no benefit to a non-trickster Rogue but the book does offer a useful benefit to the monk. +2 strength is useful for all characters, even those who used it as a dump stat. It not only improves strength checks but also strength saving throws which are common for many monsters to have you roll.

Also, finders keepers. Even the rogue with the red staff would be justified in keeping it. Nobody should be made to give up stuff - whether others can use it better or not.

"2. His PC doesn’t trust the other PCs and wants to act solo as he sees fit. FYI this is an almost 3 Irl year game and 6 months in game."

With the shit you're describing, I don't blame him. I wouldn't trust you either. I mean, he makes a decision that is his to make that doesn't actually have any negative consequence to any of you and here you are talking crap about him to everyone.

"What would be your approach? I’m thinking of just asking directly, but again. Fragile feels and expertise in deflection."

I'd say leave the guy alone and grow up.

--

This and your other posts make me feel this is more a "you" thing than a "him" thing.

You're not the DM.
It doesn't affect you at all.
Stop with the unnecessary drama and let the monk use his item.

Jeebus christ. This is a tiny insignificant issue. Get over it. Your other players have.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

"Basically there is someone at my table who came into acquisition of a +2 strength book. The one that raises stats above 20. "

So if it came into his possession then it is his. Unless your group has established some sort of "everything anyone in party finds is wholly party property, not per individual" rule before hand, then this is the monk's item.

"Enjoys authentic naturally occurring RPing

Rarely talks as a character and the player has martyr complex making addressing disagreements volatile and is met with justifications over apologies.

Has voiced many times that he doesn’t know why he’s even here because he’s not important both as a player and PC."

Irrelevant.

"So as I’ve said he acquired this book. Our warlock noticed it was magical and wanted to identify it, to which the player in question wanted to know why. It has been a standard that all items should be identified and our warlock even attempted to rp the reason saying it could be cursed and best to be sure. "

Just because it has been a standard doesn't mean it must be so everytime. It's the monk's item. If he doesn't want it identified, he doesn't have to.

He can also identify it himself because magic items feel magical when handled, can be identified on a short rest, and it is a book filled with information about exercises that intend to increase strength. So he doesn't really need it identified, it would be obvious even without metagaming what it is.

"Yet the player persistently refused, asking for reasons and giving justifications. Eventually the lock gave up. The player justifying his choice by saying “it’s a book about weight training and it’s mine”. He could have rp’d a reason for his adamant stance but he didn’t even bother. So out the window goes “I like natural occurring rp moments”"

With due respect this sounds like he was trying to RP and got annoyed when the lock persisted unreasonably. This is how it should have gone:

Lock: Can I identify that for you, it might be cursed?
Monk: No thanks.
Lock: Understandable, have a nice day.

And that should have been the end of it. It sounds like that wasn't the case.

"This player has two issues one way or the other that I see and none of them make him look good."

Gonna disagree as so far the only issue I've seen you describe is a PC who wants his character to use the item his character found and you all being a bunch of metagame-heads giving him a hard time because you want it for the Paladin despite it not being your call at all. But sure, let's see what issues you're going to invent here.

"1. He’s hiding behind “natural rping” to excuse toxic playing *why should I give this book to the Paladin because it’s min/max sound?* To justify improving his own character over the benefit to the party. That’s like me, a Rogue, taking a red staff I find with + 3 to hit with wizard spells and keeping it because it matches my socks. Basically “It’s what my character would do” stance "

Ah so "I don't like his choice so he's toxic!".  Your attitude is just woeful. If he wants to use an item to improve his own character - he can. That is the point of such items. Some use them to increase max stats, some use them to increase in areas that are lacking they'd prefer to improve. This is perfectly fine. Your rogue example is a false equivalency: the staff offers no benefit to a non-trickster Rogue but the book does offer a useful benefit to the monk. +2 strength is useful for all characters, even those who used it as a dump stat. It not only improves strength checks but also strength saving throws which are common for many monsters to have you roll.

Also, finders keepers. Even the rogue with the red staff would be justified in keeping it. Nobody should be made to give up stuff - whether others can use it better or not.

"2. His PC doesn’t trust the other PCs and wants to act solo as he sees fit. FYI this is an almost 3 Irl year game and 6 months in game."

With the shit you're describing, I don't blame him. I wouldn't trust you either. I mean, he makes a decision that is his to make that doesn't actually have any negative consequence to any of you and here you are talking crap about him to everyone.

"What would be your approach? I’m thinking of just asking directly, but again. Fragile feels and expertise in deflection."

I'd say leave the guy alone and grow up.

--

This and your other posts make me feel this is more a "you" thing than a "him" thing.

You're not the DM.
It doesn't affect you at all.
Stop with the unnecessary drama and let the monk use his item.

Jeebus christ. This is a tiny insignificant issue. Get over it. Your other players have.

 
It certainly does make it a lot easier to be aggressively dismissive of another person when you decide the single most relevant portion of their post is “irrelevant”. 

Intention matters in D&D and the best way to measure intention is to look at the totality of one’s conduct.  This kind of behaviour very well be acceptable at many tables (it certainly is when I DM), but that is because folks’ intent remains “let’s all have fun, and [inter party stealing/min maxing/everyone keeps their loot/etc.] is something we have fun with.”

But the critical bit you wrote off as irrelevant shows that is not the case here.  Every single one of those descriptors is a red flag, ranging from mild (not talking in sessions—which is really only a red flag when other factors are at play) to extremely serious (whining about how he doesn’t even want to be in the party; acting in a volatile manner).”  When you have many red flags, it increasingly becomes clear the intention behind keeping the book is more to stir up trouble than it is to just help themselves and have fun in a social game.

Therein lies the real problem, and ignoring that critical piece of the puzzle shows some questionable knowledge of how real-world player dynamics work in a healthy group.

The reason I said it was irrelevant is because it is one side about something there are clearly two sides to. 

OP describes the monk player as having a "martyr complex" yet also demonstrates he and others make mountains out of mole hills. He didn't want the item identified - which is fine, yet had to "persistently" (OP's word) defend that decision when he didn't have to. 

One could interpret the red flags, as you call them, as defensive behaviour as somebody trying to play D&D in a group that are constantly giving him grief over silly stuff - like this book which he found and wants to use for his own character. 

Rather than rely on this highly subjective and biased view presented by the OP , I preferred to focus on the specific matter at hand. Whether this was the norm of the monk player or not, his PC found an item, he wanted this for his character, the party gave him grief over it unnecessarily, and even when everyone else -- including the "paladin" who was barely even playing anymore and the DM had all moved on, the OP still was hung up on this matter (which had nothing to do with him in any way, shape or form) and decided to come onto the forums about it and get advice on what he should do with the player - when, again, it's not his place and has nothing to do with him.

This to me screams of the OP just not liking the Monk Player and finding a way to feel justified about taking some control over a situation that very much is only one in his head. 

Mostly the whole thing sounds very much like we're getting one side of a deeply two-sided story, and nobody has enough information to properly support or condemn.  Weighing in on personality problems when one player is describing problems with the personality of an unnamed silent co-player who is not present to defend themself is always kinda dodgy, but it feels especially so here.  Let's have everybody remember - we do not and cannot know the full story on this one.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Mostly the whole thing sounds very much like we're getting one side of a deeply two-sided story, and nobody has enough information to properly support or condemn.  Weighing in on personality problems when one player is describing problems with the personality of an unnamed silent co-player who is not present to defend themself is always kinda dodgy, but it feels especially so here.  Let's have everybody remember - we do not and cannot know the full story on this one.

I mean that’s true of everything right.  It’s why my advice boils down to “Talk to the guy, figure it out and if you don’t like the answer then either bring it up or excuse yourself”.

Everyone is allowed to provide their advice since the guy is asking for it.   Infer from his statements how you will, put yourselves in their shoes and try.  I just wish that more people would try to remain positive when giving negative critiques. 

Everything that the OP has written I could easily read into that either side is the jerk. Honestly, I read any of the points and see how it could be the player being a jerk, or it could be the party and the OP is describing how the person is responding to it. Is the person really hypersensitive and refusing to talk about things in an adult way? Or has the party been getting on their back about their every decision for the last few years and they're just getting defensive?

The answer to this is the same every other thread asking people to judge a situation that they have practically no knowledge of. Speak to the other person and see if you can resolve it in a mature and friendly way. If you can, great. Otherwise you have to decide whether you can tolerate this kind of thing happening. Otherwise, you need to go find others to play with.

It's not our place to judge this person who we've never met based on a conversation we never heard. 

Mostly going against my usual bored-spitfire leanings and hoping to defuse long-winded tears at each other.  But if you want my authentic Saucy Ghost ***** read on it?

The OP sounds very, very much like someone saying "I don't like what this other guy's doing with his character and I want a bunch of Internet randos to justify me being obnoxious right back to him and I'm using this kerfuffle over a Strength book to do it."  He's also hiding in turn behind this other player's supposed fragility and inability to take criticism, which is something the table should have found workarounds for after three years of play.  I want to hear from this monk player, but I don't get to do that and I'm not willing to take the word of someone whose primary point is "other people decided it'd be best for this guy to give up his magic item to someone else and I'm upset he didn't."  Has anyone given up an item they liked because it'd be best for the monk player?  I can almost certainly guarantee the answer is 'no' because people generally assume monks 'don't need' magic items due to their class abilities, same as artificers, and tables which insist on assigning items based solely on 'Min/Max Soundness' tend to leave people in the dust to empower the one or two Best Guys to the nines.