I'd like to pick your collective brains on something my group of players has become quite proficient in--which is working together to steal something basically in plain site in a very elaborate way.
Here's the action situation 1. A player has a sentient fishing pole that is obsessed with stealing fishing related gear whenever possible. Tells a player to steal the hat from an NPC at a refugee camp.
2. The setting is that that around 60 people are huddled around a bonfire in a snow inundated valley, daytime, outside. The character with the hat is sitting on a rock at the edge of the group of people.
3. One player summons an illusionary monster behind the character, then a barbarian throws his axe passing by the head of the character with the at to hit the illusion, appearing to save her.
4. Another player tackles the hat character to save her from the axe being thrown at her, thus knocking her down.
5. The final player sleight of hands the hat and high tails it out of there.
What I did
1. I had each of them make a roll depending on what they were doing, and all of them rolled extremely well, above 20's in all cases, so it was executed quite nicely. The hat stealer barely rolled high enough for the DC, so I let her steal it.
2. The hat person stood up and immediately saw her hat missing and started looking for the person who has it--and failed a perception check to find that person.
3. They all high-tailed it out of there.
Public Reaction
1. They realized the monster was an illusion and they were being played as fools (there are casters in the NPC audience who recognize what happened). 2. I'm sure they'll be able to conclude that one of those players stole the hat in the furor.
Question So my question for you all is this: would you have made other checks in terms of sleight of hand to see if she was noticed? Multiple checks? Would the dozens of other people around all get checks as she steals it and is running through them to get away?
Consequences What might the consequences be for brazen theft in this refugee camp where people are starving and dying every night and a level of survival brutality is present?
What might the consequences be for brazen theft in this refugee camp where people are starving and dying every night and a level of survival brutality is present?
If this was a nameless refugee, let it go. If this was an agent of the government, Have poster up searching for the hat. Maybe officials stopping groups and looking through packed gear.
Okay... so what I'm seeing is that your players, when confronted with a compulsion to commit a very minor crime, concocted an Oceans-Eleven-level heist involving all the players, executed it flawlessly, and you rolled poorly to perceive any underhandedness on behalf of the players themselves... and you're looking for a way to punish them?
Dude. Let them have the hat. I would kill for a table of players who collaborated so ingeniously and effectively. Hell, reward them with some comic relief. The original hat owner comes to the players, tells them that some people in camp discovered the monster was a fake (*gasp!*) and that his hat was stolen in the fracas. He wants them to help him find the perpetrator, seeing as they're such brave, stand-up folks. Rebuild the campaign around this moment!Make them accidentally discover a legitimate evil who was conspiring to get the hat. Make the hat a powerful artifact in disguise that beseeches their aid in protecting it from the newfound threat. Do something to make this moment meaningful to your players!
Speaking as the DM of a bunch of new-to-the-game middle schoolers who think they're playing nine separate games at the same time in the same place, you reward the heck out of that effective collaboration. That was beautiful!
Forgot to add: maybe there are consequences, but let them be redeemable and not mechanics. Maybe they learn it was stolen from a teenager who's mom had made them that hat but their mom was killed in whatever situation led to them being in the refugee camp. Pull at heartstrings, but in a way that lets them do wonderful things.
Firstly, I'd have said that at my table that Slight of Hand check would have been a DC of 30. I might even have said that they can steal the hat without even rolling, but they ought to be aware that it's highly likely someone will see them do it. There's simply too many eyes around, and illusion spells are going to be audible because of Verbal spellcasting components (Minor Image isn't going to be effective because it's image OR sound, not both and as such I would be having the victim NPC rolling a check against the illusion), so that will immediately alert any spellcasters in the crowd to schemes and crimes. It's a bit like trying to run a three-card monte or shell game stand in a major city. Too many folks are aware of the scam of the game and the added pickpocket risk. Sure, you might scam a tourist or two who are too naïve to know, but the likelihood of getting caught is high here. Only in this case as soon as a spellcaster hears the arcane chants indicative of spellcasting I'd say their guard will go up. Even if you don't know the spell, in a world where fireball exists why take the risk of not preparing for danger? This is one of those things that I've seen too many DMs just ignore. The verbal components of spells are a big deal because they can alert enemies, other spellcasters, and even the general public.
If you've got spellcasters in the immediate area, then assuming at least one of them has a conscience that spellcaster might try Entangle or Web, or some other such spell to stop the thief. If there aren't any have-a-go-heroes in the audience then the consequences are basically going to be that your player party aren't welcome in that company again. They know what the party did and are likely going to be slandering or telling the story of thieving adventurers stealing from the poor. I might even have a member of that audience be encountered at a campsite or tavern somewhere down the line in the adventure. The gossip that said audience NPC might have engaged in could even sway an entire settlement against the adventurers. Consequence for their actions being that a village that might have been helpful is now not interested in being helpful and fleeces the adventurers by doubling sales costs, refusing to negotiate, or maybe not allowing them to stay in any inn or other place of rest.
The piece of the puzzle I feel like you've left out though and which might alter my opinion on the matter is:
Does the fishing pole merely get annoying, grumpy, or belligerent if the player character doesn't steal the items requested? Or are we talking about a cursed item complete with WIS saving throws, and consequences for not doing what is asked?
If there are consequences for the PC for failing to steal an item then I'd likely go easier on the PCs. Though, I'd never design an item in that way personally. If there are no consequences, no saves, or no real compulsion, then this is a choice made by the players and the characters freely. The player character didn't have to listen to the item. They didn't need to steal anything. In which case, congratulations, your player party are now protagonists not heroes. They stole, and the consequences of chosen actions are part of the way in which a world is built and a story unfolds. Allowing for consequences to the actions allows the party to react. Maybe they don't care that this small group of 60 NPCs will be slandering them. After all they're big tough adventurers. Maybe, when they hear themselves be described by an NPC at a campsite in future as petty thugs and vagabonds who violated a poor innocent person they'll be driven to make amends. That right there is how you give players choices and create a world that feels real and unique and alive.
Speaking as the DM of a bunch of new-to-the-game middle schoolers who think they're playing nine separate games at the same time in the same place, you reward the heck out of that effective collaboration. That was beautiful!
Slightly off topic but as someone who also runs a kids club I'm slightly relieved to find out the nine separate players playing nine separate games isn't just a me problem
One question I have about the original situation: is the 'sentient fishing rod that wants the PC to steal the hat' DM-controlled or player-controlled? In the former situation, I would say the DM it pretty clearly signalling to the players that this is a chaos campaign, and suddenly reversing on that would be a bit unfair. In the latter situation, you have a chaos monkey player and you may want to have a private conversation asking them to tone it down.
My group of players All teachers, almost always very well coordinated and strategic. There are no chaos monkeys. It's a pretty ideal group.
Pantagruel, The fishing pole is DM controlled only in the sense that it talks to the Wizard that owns it (it turns into a staff when not near water). The purpose of the pole is to inject a bit of optional chaos as their pursue their goals. The pole simply wants to collect the most powerful fishing gear to make the perfect catch at the perfect spot using the perfect bait. So I'm going to inject a bunch of increasingly harder and more ridiculous fishing related paraphernalia that will be in various scenes, which is purely optional. Ironically, the player who has the pole is exactly the player who can't resist being baited by the curiosity.
Is the Hat Sentient? Nope. Each thing the pole collects will increase fishing result probabilities.
Cunning, I also run a kids club! Most of them are the children of my teachers group.
RWinnie, The word 'consequences' is not a pejorative. Consequences are outcomes, not punishments. These elaborate schemes are very much par-for-the-course at the table.
"Rebuild the campaign around this moment! " This made me lol. I can't imagine being in a narrative situation where there is so little going on, so little planning or structure, that this might become a 'rebuild the campaign around this'.
MartinTheActor, Fantastic feedback. Well said, well elaborated.
Re: "DC30 check" They're level 7--this would be impossible for them. Curious why you'd put it so high? In terms of math, I was thinking that it's possible that 10 people might have to fail perception checks, which would effectively be the same. But then, I think it would be a passive perception check on the audience, which they wouldn't roll for. Have you seen the pick-pocket YouTube videos on subway stations? The pickpockets steal something, a vigilante shouts out "pick pocket!!!", then those pickpockets silently walk away like nothing happened. Maybe 2-3 people, who were actively watching, saw what they did, and the rest just see a person walking away.
Re: they can steal even without rolling They can always do that :D ...what's that quote though? "play stupid games, get stupid prizes!"
re: illusion spells are going to be audible because of Verbal spellcasting components "This is one of those things that I've seen too many DMs just ignore." Including myself. Well noted, change downloading....complete!
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of this. My players tend to get away with casting spells like they're completely silent. Which is really a DM issue that I haven't enforced. At the same time, what if they say that they're whispering the verbal component? edit: I've done a bit of looking on this and general consensus is that it it would be pretty obvious, as you've mentioned.
"having the victim NPC rolling a check against the illusion" In this case, the victim was caught off guard by a bunch of nearly simultaneous actions. I tend not to roll against illusions unless theres a modicum of suspicion that it might not be real. Do you typically run active checks vs illusions? In this scenario, creatures have been attacking this refugee camp frequently, so it's pretty plausible.
"If you've got spellcasters in the immediate area, then assuming at least one of them has a conscience that spellcaster might try Entangle or Web" again, excellent idea. I should have done this---there were several casters in the area.
"If there aren't any have-a-go-heroes in the audience then the consequences are basically going to be that your player party aren't welcome in that company again" Here's the rub: they've completed Act 1 and are regional heroes. When they arrived at this snow-inundated valley with a starving refugee camp, they brought a bunch of food as well. So before this, they had a stellar reputation. So I think this'll knock them down a notch. Agree on the idea that this will cause people to doubt their intentions, rumors, or even some group vigilante justice. "Get em!"
"Does the fishing pole merely get annoying, grumpy, or belligerent if the player character doesn't steal the items requested?" It'll be persistent, but not mad or annoying. The fishing pole is on the spectrum somewhere--it's got its obsessions, and that's all it wants to talk about. It's purpose is a dopamine trigger--"unknown potential reward" which I specifically chose for my player who can't resist that kind of mystery (HS math teacher) (mwhaha!).
"If there are consequences for the PC for failing to steal an item then I'd likely go easier on the PCs. Though, I'd never design an item in that way personally. If there are no consequences, no saves, or no real compulsion, then this is a choice made by the players and the characters freely."
No consequences: this serves entirely as a optional side objective for the player to pursue that has only a small impact on the campaign. This was created specifically for that player because this is exactly the kind of mystery they love and wouldn't be able to resist. The secondary purpose of the pole is that my group has no cleric, and I've strategically positioned, often hard to reach, fishing locations in my maps which he'll be able to get healing potions from. (he doesn't know this though).
"They didn't need to steal anything. In which case, congratulations, your player party are now protagonists not heroes." I leave this to my players. I don't think being a hero is any of their goals, but then is any hero's goal to become a hero? My group behavior in a nutshell is decently characterized by "brings a bunch of food and gives it to starving people and saves children---then proceeds to rob the people they think might have something they want." They're anti-heroes for sure.
"Maybe, when they hear themselves be described by an NPC at a campsite in future as petty thugs and vagabonds who violated a poor innocent person they'll be driven to make amends. That right there is how you give players choices and create a world that feels real and unique and alive." Agree, this is exactly how I run things.
Ultimately in terms of consequences, what I want is it to feel that the world is reacting naturally to them given the contextual variables of the narrative.
Again, appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
What I'll do DM 101 is never to punish, I'm sure we all know that at this point (right?). My goal is to ensure players are having fun--which they certainly are, but I also want to ensure that the world responds naturally to their actions, both in a natural sense, but also in a D&D mechanical sense.
It makes sense that they were seen, that a spell was cast, and that it was an elaborate but quite obvious to some, petty theft. An important NPC, an incredibly intelligent professional investigator, also a wizard, was standing right beside them, it would make perfect sense he knows exactly what happened. This characters name is, suitably, "The Watch".
It's a stolen fishing hat, not a bank heist, so the person who lost it will want it back and request that they give it back. The head of the camp, also their ally, will have a talk with them about maintaining order at the camp and request that they refrain from stealing, or actions that might incite chaos.
Their reputation will take a hit. It's also possible they return it and in a grand reversal, persuade the person that it was to save them from a imminent threat that they weren't aware of, thus becoming even greater heroes.
The Watch (lawful evil) will have a private conversation about them on how he catches villains and the oversights they typically make. Then he'll chastise them for their 'amateur hour' approach.
Pantagruel, The fishing pole is DM controlled only in the sense that it talks to the Wizard that owns it (it turns into a staff when not near water). The purpose of the pole is to inject a bit of optional chaos as their pursue their goals. The pole simply wants to collect the most powerful fishing gear to make the perfect catch at the perfect spot using the perfect bait. So I'm going to inject a bunch of increasingly harder and more ridiculous fishing related paraphernalia that will be in various scenes, which is purely optional. Ironically, the player who has the pole is exactly the player who can't resist being baited by the curiosity.
There's no "only in the sense" about it. The fishing pole is completely DM-controlled.
And while interacting with the fishing pole's requests is optional, with clearly defined mundane rewards, a DM generally puts things into the game for the players to interact with. Failing to interact with the thing the DM puts in front of players is somewhat of a dead end. "Do you want to interact with this content I put in for you (Y/N)?"
The word 'consequences' is not a pejorative. Consequences are outcomes, not punishments. These elaborate schemes are very much par-for-the-course at the table.
"If there aren't any have-a-go-heroes in the audience then the consequences are basically going to be that your player party aren't welcome in that company again" Here's the rub: they've completed Act 1 and are regional heroes. When they arrived at this snow-inundated valley with a starving refugee camp, they brought a bunch of food as well. So before this, they had a stellar reputation. So I think this'll knock them down a notch. Agree on the idea that this will cause people to doubt their intentions, rumors, or even some group vigilante justice. "Get em!"
"Maybe, when they hear themselves be described by an NPC at a campsite in future as petty thugs and vagabonds who violated a poor innocent person they'll be driven to make amends. That right there is how you give players choices and create a world that feels real and unique and alive." Agree, this is exactly how I run things.
Ultimately in terms of consequences, what I want is it to feel that the world is reacting naturally to them given the contextual variables of the narrative.
When deciding on consequences, I would perhaps taking into consideration that being regional heroes (which presumably involves acting in a heroic manner) and bringing food and such and "stealing a mundane hat" should not be given equal weight on the scale of morality.
If the PC's have been doing a lot of heroic things and bringing food and water, they probably shouldn't be treated as thugs and pariahs for stealing a mundane hat.
When deciding on consequences, I would perhaps taking into consideration that being regional heroes (which presumably involves acting in a heroic manner) and bringing food and such and "stealing a mundane hat" should not be given equal weight on the scale of morality.
If the PC's have been doing a lot of heroic things and bringing food and water, they probably shouldn't be treated as thugs and pariahs for stealing a mundane hat.
Personally, I think that's world dependant. In fact I could world-build a setting that has a variety of different approaches to crimes that do not relate to value of the hat.
In a world where the society is strict on crime, then prior deeds are irrelevant. Let's call this the Javert society. The value of the item stolen is irrelevant, the mere fact that an item has been stolen is the issue.
A society could judge theft based not on objective, but on relative value. What this means the severity of the crime is dictated by the value of the item stolen compared with the victim's income. As such a relatively mundane item stolen from a destitute beggar would have a far higher relative value than a gemstone stolen from the wealthiest lord in the land. This then makes the theft of the hat a very severe crime if the victim is less well off.
A society could be more of the Valjean theme - stealing a minor item like say a loaf of bread is justified in certain circumstances. In which case, yeah this is going to be a minor crime.
Similarly a society could have their sense of justice based around the needs of the thief. If the thief was wealthy enough to have purchased the item, then the crime is seen as more severe. If the thief is entirely destitute, and the item needed was a necessity, then the crime would be extremely minor.
Take a moment to think about worldbuilding here, there are more examples than what I've given but hopefully I've demonstrated that there's more than one approach that fictional societies can take. Ultimately the answer for Neepers is going to be whatever best fits in with his world and his table's adventure setting. If this happened in a lawless wildland, then the consequences are likely going to be minor or inconsequential.
Incidentally @Neepers00, the reason I'd have set the DC quite so high is that by level 7 there are plenty of feats and class feature that do in fact make a DC30 achievable. Take for example a Bard who has taken expertise in Slight of Hand. If they've got a base modifier to Dex of +5, with a PB of +3, expertise doubles the PB for a modifier of +11. That means it is possible to succeed on a DC20 check more than half the time. With hindsight, you're probably correct an a DC of 25 for something where the odds are high that at least on of the 60 people would have seen or heard something suspicious (let's not forget they've got the warning of the verbal components of the spell) would be more appropriate.
I am thinking about worldbuilding. That was my point. Just because it's not the exact same worldbuilding you would do doesn't mean I didn't think about it.
DC 30 is considered "nearly impossible." As in it's just one step short of the DM just outright saying "you cannot succeed," and not letting you try at all. Taking a hat from someone who you are next to who you just tackled and is distracted might be high, but not "nearly impossible." The tackle even gives a justification for the hat dislodging from the person's head. The fact that there are 60 people around doesn't matter that much, you're not going to make 60 perception rolls for everyone in the crowd, maybe just 2-3 at most.
A DC should be set based on the (approximate) actual difficulty of the task, not on the maximum potential possible modifier the players might have. First of all, if a player builds their character to do a thing, it is satisfying for them when they're able to succeed on the thing they built their character to do. Secondly, if you set a DC based on an optimized build, then you risk making it impossible for anyone but an optimizer to succeed at (and even the optimizer could fail.)
Taking a hat from someone who you are next to who you just tackled and is distracted might be high, but not "nearly impossible."
This is where there is a misunderstanding. I wouldn't call for the success or failure of stealing that hat. The character can absolutely do that with no problems.
The check is to not be witnessed taking said hat.
In the scenario outlined, consider that what you as a bystander might be witnessing is big scary monster rushing toward NPC. PC throws axe just left of the NPC. Another PC 'saves' the NPC. There are three or four potential places an observer can be looking. At least a few will be directing attention toward the NPC being 'saved' and stolen from. The more eyes on the theft the more likely it is to be noticed, even if it's great slight of hand. Anyone who's ever understood how most card tricks are done can see that. Once you've seen a mechanic's grip it is almost impossible to not notice.
So as I say, the check in my eyes wouldn't be to succeed or fail on the act of stealing - that will just happen. The check is on if the PC is seen stealing. Entirely different thing.
I would say, as the OP did, that the party would take a reputational hit. Refugees have much bigger things to worry about than retrieving a hat. I don’t see them going after it or doing much personally. But they will talk extensively about it and tell others what happened. That method with the illusion might not work again once word spreads about the technique. Other refugee groups, and whatever faction they belong to will be hesitant to work with them, trade with them, share information with them, etc. They might not be permitted to enter other camps, as the people there will rightly ask what the party will steal this time.
And there’s always the possibility that some righteous do-gooder hears about it and decides to retrieve the stolen hat for this poor person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Howdy all!
I'd like to pick your collective brains on something my group of players has become quite proficient in--which is working together to steal something basically in plain site in a very elaborate way.
Here's the action situation
1. A player has a sentient fishing pole that is obsessed with stealing fishing related gear whenever possible. Tells a player to steal the hat from an NPC at a refugee camp.
2. The setting is that that around 60 people are huddled around a bonfire in a snow inundated valley, daytime, outside. The character with the hat is sitting on a rock at the edge of the group of people.
3. One player summons an illusionary monster behind the character, then a barbarian throws his axe passing by the head of the character with the at to hit the illusion, appearing to save her.
4. Another player tackles the hat character to save her from the axe being thrown at her, thus knocking her down.
5. The final player sleight of hands the hat and high tails it out of there.
What I did
1. I had each of them make a roll depending on what they were doing, and all of them rolled extremely well, above 20's in all cases, so it was executed quite nicely. The hat stealer barely rolled high enough for the DC, so I let her steal it.
2. The hat person stood up and immediately saw her hat missing and started looking for the person who has it--and failed a perception check to find that person.
3. They all high-tailed it out of there.
Public Reaction
1. They realized the monster was an illusion and they were being played as fools (there are casters in the NPC audience who recognize what happened).
2. I'm sure they'll be able to conclude that one of those players stole the hat in the furor.
Question
So my question for you all is this: would you have made other checks in terms of sleight of hand to see if she was noticed? Multiple checks? Would the dozens of other people around all get checks as she steals it and is running through them to get away?
Consequences
What might the consequences be for brazen theft in this refugee camp where people are starving and dying every night and a level of survival brutality is present?
Appreciate your thoughts!
If this was a nameless refugee, let it go. If this was an agent of the government, Have poster up searching for the hat. Maybe officials stopping groups and looking through packed gear.
Is the hat magic? is it sentient?
Okay... so what I'm seeing is that your players, when confronted with a compulsion to commit a very minor crime, concocted an Oceans-Eleven-level heist involving all the players, executed it flawlessly, and you rolled poorly to perceive any underhandedness on behalf of the players themselves... and you're looking for a way to punish them?
Dude. Let them have the hat. I would kill for a table of players who collaborated so ingeniously and effectively. Hell, reward them with some comic relief. The original hat owner comes to the players, tells them that some people in camp discovered the monster was a fake (*gasp!*) and that his hat was stolen in the fracas. He wants them to help him find the perpetrator, seeing as they're such brave, stand-up folks. Rebuild the campaign around this moment! Make them accidentally discover a legitimate evil who was conspiring to get the hat. Make the hat a powerful artifact in disguise that beseeches their aid in protecting it from the newfound threat. Do something to make this moment meaningful to your players!
Speaking as the DM of a bunch of new-to-the-game middle schoolers who think they're playing nine separate games at the same time in the same place, you reward the heck out of that effective collaboration. That was beautiful!
Forgot to add: maybe there are consequences, but let them be redeemable and not mechanics. Maybe they learn it was stolen from a teenager who's mom had made them that hat but their mom was killed in whatever situation led to them being in the refugee camp. Pull at heartstrings, but in a way that lets them do wonderful things.
I would have rolled a contest with Advantage for the elaborated stratagem;
Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) vs Wisdom (Perception)
Firstly, I'd have said that at my table that Slight of Hand check would have been a DC of 30. I might even have said that they can steal the hat without even rolling, but they ought to be aware that it's highly likely someone will see them do it. There's simply too many eyes around, and illusion spells are going to be audible because of Verbal spellcasting components (Minor Image isn't going to be effective because it's image OR sound, not both and as such I would be having the victim NPC rolling a check against the illusion), so that will immediately alert any spellcasters in the crowd to schemes and crimes. It's a bit like trying to run a three-card monte or shell game stand in a major city. Too many folks are aware of the scam of the game and the added pickpocket risk. Sure, you might scam a tourist or two who are too naïve to know, but the likelihood of getting caught is high here. Only in this case as soon as a spellcaster hears the arcane chants indicative of spellcasting I'd say their guard will go up. Even if you don't know the spell, in a world where fireball exists why take the risk of not preparing for danger? This is one of those things that I've seen too many DMs just ignore. The verbal components of spells are a big deal because they can alert enemies, other spellcasters, and even the general public.
If you've got spellcasters in the immediate area, then assuming at least one of them has a conscience that spellcaster might try Entangle or Web, or some other such spell to stop the thief. If there aren't any have-a-go-heroes in the audience then the consequences are basically going to be that your player party aren't welcome in that company again. They know what the party did and are likely going to be slandering or telling the story of thieving adventurers stealing from the poor. I might even have a member of that audience be encountered at a campsite or tavern somewhere down the line in the adventure. The gossip that said audience NPC might have engaged in could even sway an entire settlement against the adventurers. Consequence for their actions being that a village that might have been helpful is now not interested in being helpful and fleeces the adventurers by doubling sales costs, refusing to negotiate, or maybe not allowing them to stay in any inn or other place of rest.
The piece of the puzzle I feel like you've left out though and which might alter my opinion on the matter is:
Does the fishing pole merely get annoying, grumpy, or belligerent if the player character doesn't steal the items requested? Or are we talking about a cursed item complete with WIS saving throws, and consequences for not doing what is asked?
If there are consequences for the PC for failing to steal an item then I'd likely go easier on the PCs. Though, I'd never design an item in that way personally. If there are no consequences, no saves, or no real compulsion, then this is a choice made by the players and the characters freely. The player character didn't have to listen to the item. They didn't need to steal anything. In which case, congratulations, your player party are now protagonists not heroes. They stole, and the consequences of chosen actions are part of the way in which a world is built and a story unfolds. Allowing for consequences to the actions allows the party to react. Maybe they don't care that this small group of 60 NPCs will be slandering them. After all they're big tough adventurers. Maybe, when they hear themselves be described by an NPC at a campsite in future as petty thugs and vagabonds who violated a poor innocent person they'll be driven to make amends. That right there is how you give players choices and create a world that feels real and unique and alive.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Slightly off topic but as someone who also runs a kids club I'm slightly relieved to find out the nine separate players playing nine separate games isn't just a me problem
One question I have about the original situation: is the 'sentient fishing rod that wants the PC to steal the hat' DM-controlled or player-controlled? In the former situation, I would say the DM it pretty clearly signalling to the players that this is a chaos campaign, and suddenly reversing on that would be a bit unfair. In the latter situation, you have a chaos monkey player and you may want to have a private conversation asking them to tone it down.
Appreciate the feedback!
Clarifying some questions on the scenario
My group of players
All teachers, almost always very well coordinated and strategic. There are no chaos monkeys. It's a pretty ideal group.
Pantagruel,
The fishing pole is DM controlled only in the sense that it talks to the Wizard that owns it (it turns into a staff when not near water). The purpose of the pole is to inject a bit of optional chaos as their pursue their goals. The pole simply wants to collect the most powerful fishing gear to make the perfect catch at the perfect spot using the perfect bait. So I'm going to inject a bunch of increasingly harder and more ridiculous fishing related paraphernalia that will be in various scenes, which is purely optional. Ironically, the player who has the pole is exactly the player who can't resist being baited by the curiosity.
Is the Hat Sentient?
Nope. Each thing the pole collects will increase fishing result probabilities.
Cunning,
I also run a kids club! Most of them are the children of my teachers group.
RWinnie,
The word 'consequences' is not a pejorative. Consequences are outcomes, not punishments. These elaborate schemes are very much par-for-the-course at the table.
"Rebuild the campaign around this moment! "
This made me lol. I can't imagine being in a narrative situation where there is so little going on, so little planning or structure, that this might become a 'rebuild the campaign around this'.
MartinTheActor,
Fantastic feedback. Well said, well elaborated.
Re: "DC30 check"
They're level 7--this would be impossible for them. Curious why you'd put it so high? In terms of math, I was thinking that it's possible that 10 people might have to fail perception checks, which would effectively be the same. But then, I think it would be a passive perception check on the audience, which they wouldn't roll for. Have you seen the pick-pocket YouTube videos on subway stations? The pickpockets steal something, a vigilante shouts out "pick pocket!!!", then those pickpockets silently walk away like nothing happened. Maybe 2-3 people, who were actively watching, saw what they did, and the rest just see a person walking away.
Re: they can steal even without rolling
They can always do that :D ...what's that quote though? "play stupid games, get stupid prizes!"
re: illusion spells are going to be audible because of Verbal spellcasting components
"This is one of those things that I've seen too many DMs just ignore."
Including myself. Well noted, change downloading....complete!
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of this. My players tend to get away with casting spells like they're completely silent. Which is really a DM issue that I haven't enforced. At the same time, what if they say that they're whispering the verbal component? edit: I've done a bit of looking on this and general consensus is that it it would be pretty obvious, as you've mentioned.
"having the victim NPC rolling a check against the illusion"
In this case, the victim was caught off guard by a bunch of nearly simultaneous actions. I tend not to roll against illusions unless theres a modicum of suspicion that it might not be real. Do you typically run active checks vs illusions? In this scenario, creatures have been attacking this refugee camp frequently, so it's pretty plausible.
"If you've got spellcasters in the immediate area, then assuming at least one of them has a conscience that spellcaster might try Entangle or Web"
again, excellent idea. I should have done this---there were several casters in the area.
"If there aren't any have-a-go-heroes in the audience then the consequences are basically going to be that your player party aren't welcome in that company again"
Here's the rub: they've completed Act 1 and are regional heroes. When they arrived at this snow-inundated valley with a starving refugee camp, they brought a bunch of food as well. So before this, they had a stellar reputation. So I think this'll knock them down a notch. Agree on the idea that this will cause people to doubt their intentions, rumors, or even some group vigilante justice. "Get em!"
"Does the fishing pole merely get annoying, grumpy, or belligerent if the player character doesn't steal the items requested?"
It'll be persistent, but not mad or annoying. The fishing pole is on the spectrum somewhere--it's got its obsessions, and that's all it wants to talk about. It's purpose is a dopamine trigger--"unknown potential reward" which I specifically chose for my player who can't resist that kind of mystery (HS math teacher) (mwhaha!).
"If there are consequences for the PC for failing to steal an item then I'd likely go easier on the PCs. Though, I'd never design an item in that way personally. If there are no consequences, no saves, or no real compulsion, then this is a choice made by the players and the characters freely."
No consequences: this serves entirely as a optional side objective for the player to pursue that has only a small impact on the campaign. This was created specifically for that player because this is exactly the kind of mystery they love and wouldn't be able to resist. The secondary purpose of the pole is that my group has no cleric, and I've strategically positioned, often hard to reach, fishing locations in my maps which he'll be able to get healing potions from. (he doesn't know this though).
"They didn't need to steal anything. In which case, congratulations, your player party are now protagonists not heroes."
I leave this to my players. I don't think being a hero is any of their goals, but then is any hero's goal to become a hero? My group behavior in a nutshell is decently characterized by "brings a bunch of food and gives it to starving people and saves children---then proceeds to rob the people they think might have something they want." They're anti-heroes for sure.
"Maybe, when they hear themselves be described by an NPC at a campsite in future as petty thugs and vagabonds who violated a poor innocent person they'll be driven to make amends. That right there is how you give players choices and create a world that feels real and unique and alive."
Agree, this is exactly how I run things.
Ultimately in terms of consequences, what I want is it to feel that the world is reacting naturally to them given the contextual variables of the narrative.
Again, appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
What I'll do
DM 101 is never to punish, I'm sure we all know that at this point (right?). My goal is to ensure players are having fun--which they certainly are, but I also want to ensure that the world responds naturally to their actions, both in a natural sense, but also in a D&D mechanical sense.
It makes sense that they were seen, that a spell was cast, and that it was an elaborate but quite obvious to some, petty theft.
An important NPC, an incredibly intelligent professional investigator, also a wizard, was standing right beside them, it would make perfect sense he knows exactly what happened. This characters name is, suitably, "The Watch".
It's a stolen fishing hat, not a bank heist, so the person who lost it will want it back and request that they give it back. The head of the camp, also their ally, will have a talk with them about maintaining order at the camp and request that they refrain from stealing, or actions that might incite chaos.
Their reputation will take a hit. It's also possible they return it and in a grand reversal, persuade the person that it was to save them from a imminent threat that they weren't aware of, thus becoming even greater heroes.
The Watch (lawful evil) will have a private conversation about them on how he catches villains and the oversights they typically make. Then he'll chastise them for their 'amateur hour' approach.
There's no "only in the sense" about it. The fishing pole is completely DM-controlled.
And while interacting with the fishing pole's requests is optional, with clearly defined mundane rewards, a DM generally puts things into the game for the players to interact with. Failing to interact with the thing the DM puts in front of players is somewhat of a dead end. "Do you want to interact with this content I put in for you (Y/N)?"
Oh, it's not a punishment, that's good to he-
When deciding on consequences, I would perhaps taking into consideration that being regional heroes (which presumably involves acting in a heroic manner) and bringing food and such and "stealing a mundane hat" should not be given equal weight on the scale of morality.
If the PC's have been doing a lot of heroic things and bringing food and water, they probably shouldn't be treated as thugs and pariahs for stealing a mundane hat.
Personally, I think that's world dependant. In fact I could world-build a setting that has a variety of different approaches to crimes that do not relate to value of the hat.
Take a moment to think about worldbuilding here, there are more examples than what I've given but hopefully I've demonstrated that there's more than one approach that fictional societies can take. Ultimately the answer for Neepers is going to be whatever best fits in with his world and his table's adventure setting. If this happened in a lawless wildland, then the consequences are likely going to be minor or inconsequential.
Incidentally @Neepers00, the reason I'd have set the DC quite so high is that by level 7 there are plenty of feats and class feature that do in fact make a DC30 achievable. Take for example a Bard who has taken expertise in Slight of Hand. If they've got a base modifier to Dex of +5, with a PB of +3, expertise doubles the PB for a modifier of +11. That means it is possible to succeed on a DC20 check more than half the time. With hindsight, you're probably correct an a DC of 25 for something where the odds are high that at least on of the 60 people would have seen or heard something suspicious (let's not forget they've got the warning of the verbal components of the spell) would be more appropriate.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I am thinking about worldbuilding. That was my point. Just because it's not the exact same worldbuilding you would do doesn't mean I didn't think about it.
DC 30 is considered "nearly impossible." As in it's just one step short of the DM just outright saying "you cannot succeed," and not letting you try at all. Taking a hat from someone who you are next to who you just tackled and is distracted might be high, but not "nearly impossible." The tackle even gives a justification for the hat dislodging from the person's head. The fact that there are 60 people around doesn't matter that much, you're not going to make 60 perception rolls for everyone in the crowd, maybe just 2-3 at most.
A DC should be set based on the (approximate) actual difficulty of the task, not on the maximum potential possible modifier the players might have. First of all, if a player builds their character to do a thing, it is satisfying for them when they're able to succeed on the thing they built their character to do. Secondly, if you set a DC based on an optimized build, then you risk making it impossible for anyone but an optimizer to succeed at (and even the optimizer could fail.)
This is where there is a misunderstanding. I wouldn't call for the success or failure of stealing that hat. The character can absolutely do that with no problems.
The check is to not be witnessed taking said hat.
In the scenario outlined, consider that what you as a bystander might be witnessing is big scary monster rushing toward NPC. PC throws axe just left of the NPC. Another PC 'saves' the NPC. There are three or four potential places an observer can be looking. At least a few will be directing attention toward the NPC being 'saved' and stolen from. The more eyes on the theft the more likely it is to be noticed, even if it's great slight of hand. Anyone who's ever understood how most card tricks are done can see that. Once you've seen a mechanic's grip it is almost impossible to not notice.
So as I say, the check in my eyes wouldn't be to succeed or fail on the act of stealing - that will just happen. The check is on if the PC is seen stealing. Entirely different thing.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I would say, as the OP did, that the party would take a reputational hit. Refugees have much bigger things to worry about than retrieving a hat. I don’t see them going after it or doing much personally.
But they will talk extensively about it and tell others what happened. That method with the illusion might not work again once word spreads about the technique.
Other refugee groups, and whatever faction they belong to will be hesitant to work with them, trade with them, share information with them, etc. They might not be permitted to enter other camps, as the people there will rightly ask what the party will steal this time.
And there’s always the possibility that some righteous do-gooder hears about it and decides to retrieve the stolen hat for this poor person.