Hi, I was wondering how to deal with PCs fighting over an item. I'm pretty new to the game, especially as a DM, and we just had our second session. Here's the situation:
My players found a map, leading to a flaming sword that used to belong to an archangel of some kind. One player immediately grabbed the thing out of curiosity, and it caught fire at the blade. Another player said: "This thing is dangerous. We should hold on to it, but give it back to the angels as soon as possible. We should not use it." The other player obviously disagreed, saying, "Why have such a strong weapon, and not use it?"
In the end, the argument got a little heated, and I told them both to roll Persuasion against each other, and the highest dice rolls would determine what the party would do. The sword would not be used.
They then started arguing over who got to keep the sword in their backpacks. Another Persuasion roll. The player holding the sword lost again, and had to give it to the other.
After the session, that player came to me and told me he didn't like how I handled that situation, since his character loved magical swords, and would not part with one if found. I can see where he's coming from, since a dice roll should not affect his character's personality traits.
So now, my question is, how would you have dealt with this situation? Should a Persuasion roll be seen as a definitive argument closer when it is between two players? Any advice would be welcome. I want my players to have fun, but these are the kind of things where I'm not certain how to act.
I'd say you did fine, got past the issue, and showed no favourites. The upset felt is by one player, where if you had allowed them to argue it might have been two or three of you upset.
As long as you handle similar situations this way in future i can't see an issue.
It can be a difficult situation, but you need to let them work through it themselves and resolve the conflict one way or another - there can be some good roleplaying if it's all done in character and can be quite revealing about character motivations.
Personally I council against using persuasion rolls for such things, as this innately benefits the character with the better persuasion skill, but more importantly it doesn't actually address the issue - the player whose character lost the roll will be left feeling that it was dealt with arbitrarily and in effect their character wants/goals don't matter.
Thank you all for your replies. I've read some great ideas, and they've helped me very much! I think I have a good idea of how to handle situations like these in the future.
The conflict between "use the enemy's weapon" and "destroy the enemy's weapon" is an old one in fiction. For example, The Lord of the Rings. Kudos for putting it in your game (even if it sounds a little accidental :-).
contested persuasion check is a little dubious, for the reasons filcat said. in my mind anyway. still it can work, and most importantly at the time of the roll... both players knew what the roll meant. and both players rolled. the player that lost, well if they had won... would they have said anything? I feel like if the characters agreed to armwrestle for it there would have been more buy in from the players.
One player immediately grabbed the thing out of curiosity, and it caught fire at the blade. Another player said: "This thing is dangerous. We should hold on to it, but give it back to the angels as soon as possible. We should not use it." The other player obviously disagreed, saying, "Why have such a strong weapon, and not use it?"
Is there possibly some other context we're missing?... because stopping another player from wielding a flaming sword in D&D seems like a complete jerk move to me.
... I mean, wielding a sweet-ass flaming sword is practically the whole point of D&D
(unless you're not proficient with swords... which I'd speculate might apply to the jerk player... just sayin')
My only thought is that a Persuasion check off isn't a good way to immediately change someone's mind. Someone's entrenched position and player agency shouldn't be overridden by a single successfully check.
One player immediately grabbed the thing out of curiosity, and it caught fire at the blade. Another player said: "This thing is dangerous. We should hold on to it, but give it back to the angels as soon as possible. We should not use it." The other player obviously disagreed, saying, "Why have such a strong weapon, and not use it?"
Is there possibly some other context we're missing?... because stopping another player from wielding a flaming sword in D&D seems like a complete jerk move to me.
... I mean, wielding a sweet-ass flaming sword is practically the whole point of D&D
(unless you're not proficient with swords... which I'd speculate might apply to the jerk player... just sayin')
Yeah, I guess you're right about the jerk move from the other player, but their character has a personal interest in getting on the good side of the angels, so he has a reason to do this. As a DM, I actually find it a pity that the sword will not be used, but at least both characters had good reasons for wanting what they wanted (especially because the one who found the sword is very clumsy and almost immediately destroyed a 1500 year old statue with it. So there's another reason for the second player not to trust him with the sword.
Anyway, I'm thinking of having them meet with the angels, who will allow them to keep the sword, if the subject is raised. Since the player who found the sword is the only one with sword proficiency, he should get the thing back.
My only thought is that a Persuasion check off isn't a good way to immediately change someone's mind. Someone's entrenched position and player agency shouldn't be overridden by a single successfully check.
This is exactly what that player told me as well. I understand this point of view well, having been in that same position as a player, and I'm trying to find a way to treat situations like these fairly.
I don't know about anyone else but my first thought was that this seems like a fantastic opportunity to introduce some conflict in the party for story purposes. Now this can be dangerous and needs to be handled with care, but from the first campaign of critical role, you can see how epic a well placed conflict can go. I'd suggest that you consider using this as long as you feel comfortable that you can keep the characters within certain boundaries and the players are also comfortable with this avenue. Keep in contact with them and ask them what they think? Will this cause real life anger or are they interested in pursing this conflict as characters?
I think that the contested roll was a perfectly fine way of dealing with it... for the moment that is. If someone is in the middle of an argument and things are getting heated, some people will agree (begrudgingly) to settle it one way for the time being, but they may have other plans. Ask the character who wants to keep the sword if he would like to pursue it in secret. Maybe he steals the sword, or maybe he goes to the other party members and convinces them to take his side before confronting the other guy. This could even make a super interesting story arc! What if they start finding more swords and it turns out to be a trap specifically for the character who wants to keep them? What if the sword is secretly sentient and forms an attachment to the character that wants to use it, transporting to his side like a puppy begging for scraps, but the one who doesn't want to use it becomes viewed as an enemy for the sword? There are a lot of avenues, but again, use extreme caution. Sometimes players don't realize just how much their characters emotions can be transferred to them.
I'd say, whatever you do, keep in touch with the players and make sure they talk with you. It sounds like you already have great trust built with the players if they can come to you about problems like this, so just keep it up! Also remember the contested roll doesn't have to be permanent. If this was a major argument, the character will find reasons to bring it up again and again so they can prove a point that it's better used. I'd say to allow this but remind that they need to respect the peace of the table as much as they expect you to respect their characters and be fair.
This is just my casual opinion based off of limited personal experience though, so if none of this is applicable to your story or players, please disregard. Hope everything works out well!
That's actually a really interesting way to look at it, and I hadn't considered that yet. I'd have to think hard about how I'd apply that to this specific scenario, but perhaps in the future that might be a cool way forward. Thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, I was wondering how to deal with PCs fighting over an item. I'm pretty new to the game, especially as a DM, and we just had our second session. Here's the situation:
My players found a map, leading to a flaming sword that used to belong to an archangel of some kind. One player immediately grabbed the thing out of curiosity, and it caught fire at the blade. Another player said: "This thing is dangerous. We should hold on to it, but give it back to the angels as soon as possible. We should not use it." The other player obviously disagreed, saying, "Why have such a strong weapon, and not use it?"
In the end, the argument got a little heated, and I told them both to roll Persuasion against each other, and the highest dice rolls would determine what the party would do. The sword would not be used.
They then started arguing over who got to keep the sword in their backpacks. Another Persuasion roll. The player holding the sword lost again, and had to give it to the other.
After the session, that player came to me and told me he didn't like how I handled that situation, since his character loved magical swords, and would not part with one if found. I can see where he's coming from, since a dice roll should not affect his character's personality traits.
So now, my question is, how would you have dealt with this situation? Should a Persuasion roll be seen as a definitive argument closer when it is between two players? Any advice would be welcome. I want my players to have fun, but these are the kind of things where I'm not certain how to act.
I'd say you did fine, got past the issue, and showed no favourites. The upset felt is by one player, where if you had allowed them to argue it might have been two or three of you upset.
As long as you handle similar situations this way in future i can't see an issue.
Split it in half and give them both flaming daggers.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIt can be a difficult situation, but you need to let them work through it themselves and resolve the conflict one way or another - there can be some good roleplaying if it's all done in character and can be quite revealing about character motivations.
Personally I council against using persuasion rolls for such things, as this innately benefits the character with the better persuasion skill, but more importantly it doesn't actually address the issue - the player whose character lost the roll will be left feeling that it was dealt with arbitrarily and in effect their character wants/goals don't matter.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Thank you all for your replies. I've read some great ideas, and they've helped me very much! I think I have a good idea of how to handle situations like these in the future.
I would give the character who is attached to magic swords an advantage on the roll.
Loading...
The conflict between "use the enemy's weapon" and "destroy the enemy's weapon" is an old one in fiction. For example, The Lord of the Rings. Kudos for putting it in your game (even if it sounds a little accidental :-).
Two men enter, one man leaves...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
contested persuasion check is a little dubious, for the reasons filcat said. in my mind anyway. still it can work, and most importantly at the time of the roll... both players knew what the roll meant. and both players rolled. the player that lost, well if they had won... would they have said anything? I feel like if the characters agreed to armwrestle for it there would have been more buy in from the players.
goog luck
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
The one with the sword would win.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Is there possibly some other context we're missing?... because stopping another player from wielding a flaming sword in D&D seems like a complete jerk move to me.
... I mean, wielding a sweet-ass flaming sword is practically the whole point of D&D
(unless you're not proficient with swords... which I'd speculate might apply to the jerk player... just sayin')
My only thought is that a Persuasion check off isn't a good way to immediately change someone's mind.
Someone's entrenched position and player agency shouldn't be overridden by a single successfully check.
Just the give other guy something same but different.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah, I guess you're right about the jerk move from the other player, but their character has a personal interest in getting on the good side of the angels, so he has a reason to do this. As a DM, I actually find it a pity that the sword will not be used, but at least both characters had good reasons for wanting what they wanted (especially because the one who found the sword is very clumsy and almost immediately destroyed a 1500 year old statue with it. So there's another reason for the second player not to trust him with the sword.
Anyway, I'm thinking of having them meet with the angels, who will allow them to keep the sword, if the subject is raised. Since the player who found the sword is the only one with sword proficiency, he should get the thing back.
This is exactly what that player told me as well. I understand this point of view well, having been in that same position as a player, and I'm trying to find a way to treat situations like these fairly.
Oh, yes. I'm definitely gonna make it up to that player. There's plenty of more magic artifacts to be found :)
Hey TheArchvile,
I don't know about anyone else but my first thought was that this seems like a fantastic opportunity to introduce some conflict in the party for story purposes. Now this can be dangerous and needs to be handled with care, but from the first campaign of critical role, you can see how epic a well placed conflict can go. I'd suggest that you consider using this as long as you feel comfortable that you can keep the characters within certain boundaries and the players are also comfortable with this avenue. Keep in contact with them and ask them what they think? Will this cause real life anger or are they interested in pursing this conflict as characters?
I think that the contested roll was a perfectly fine way of dealing with it... for the moment that is. If someone is in the middle of an argument and things are getting heated, some people will agree (begrudgingly) to settle it one way for the time being, but they may have other plans. Ask the character who wants to keep the sword if he would like to pursue it in secret. Maybe he steals the sword, or maybe he goes to the other party members and convinces them to take his side before confronting the other guy. This could even make a super interesting story arc! What if they start finding more swords and it turns out to be a trap specifically for the character who wants to keep them? What if the sword is secretly sentient and forms an attachment to the character that wants to use it, transporting to his side like a puppy begging for scraps, but the one who doesn't want to use it becomes viewed as an enemy for the sword? There are a lot of avenues, but again, use extreme caution. Sometimes players don't realize just how much their characters emotions can be transferred to them.
I'd say, whatever you do, keep in touch with the players and make sure they talk with you. It sounds like you already have great trust built with the players if they can come to you about problems like this, so just keep it up! Also remember the contested roll doesn't have to be permanent. If this was a major argument, the character will find reasons to bring it up again and again so they can prove a point that it's better used. I'd say to allow this but remind that they need to respect the peace of the table as much as they expect you to respect their characters and be fair.
This is just my casual opinion based off of limited personal experience though, so if none of this is applicable to your story or players, please disregard. Hope everything works out well!
thechimericalcookie
That's actually a really interesting way to look at it, and I hadn't considered that yet. I'd have to think hard about how I'd apply that to this specific scenario, but perhaps in the future that might be a cool way forward. Thanks!