Game is going great. Everyone is new, loves it, and really invested.
The ONLY thing that I see coming is one PC just picking on his girlfriend's PC. Her character has an ornate dagger from her parents as the only thing she has left from a monster attack, yada yada.
At some point she got captured and weapons/armor stripped away. He, being a thief, went to retrieve them, succeeded but withheld the blade.
She thinks the cult still has the knife. She and another player already have told me this is "good" as they will find object later and the enemy has a homing beacon. Smart. Except when the spell points them to the PC. I FULLY expect the fighter to beat the HELL out of the rogue. Which is fine.
The question is, in a real scenario how does the rogue even continue being allowed around the group? The rogue's background has motivations, from me, as to why he's with them. But, they might not feel that's needed. In fact 3 of the players are very good aligned and I don't see them ever trusting him if just playing true to the characters.
My thought is to "force" a feeling of compassion or forgiveness as a DM. But I feel that pulls away from the player control.
Like I said everything else is top notch, although they absolutely mess up a lot in hilarious ways cuz we are new.
I think the big thing is whether the players are having fun with it or not. Some groups can deal with a little internal fighting and laugh about it the whole way. In other groups, people's real life feelings get hurt and it can lead to the group falling apart. So the big question is, which kind of group do you have? If they can fight it out and all still be friends afterwards, then let it play out and see where it goes; it could end up as a part of the rogue's character development and fun for everyone. If it seems like people (not characters) will get upset, then you need to step in with an out-of-character discussion with the rogue's player. He'll say something like 'that's what my character would do' and you reply with: No. 1, you are in charge of your character, not the other way around. It can only ever do what you make it do, so you are being a jerk, not your character. Don't try to hide jack ass behavior behind role playing. No. 2, at some point, everyone needs to realize this is a game and you're all on the same team, so stop being mean to your teammates.
Also, it's a good idea for the future for the players to have motivations from them as to why they're all together (as opposed to you imposing them upon the rogue from outside). That's a handy thing to do in Session 0 while they are building a party.
You can force the PCs to have compassion or forgiveness. Maybe. You can't control the players though, and if they feel unsafe, got at or whatever they energy at the table is going to shift. Maybe create some scenarios where the Rogue shows his value, saves them, sticks up for them or whatever. Also, if it wasn't discussed in a Session 0, maybe have a little mini-session the next time you meet. Or ask all players separately, how they'd feel about various scenarios, including things of this type.
It's all in game issue. It is an Arcane Trickster Rogue. SO this kinda make sense. I don't think anyone at the table is or will be mad. It's legitimately a character problem. The target is a zero-nonsense and has so far been "none of your business" and "thanks but no thanks" type of person when any of the RP about her motivations or goals come into play. Not loner or edge-lord type, she's actually quite polite and re-assuring. Just not wanting to burden people with her issues along with a prideful sense of SHE must be the one to finish her quest.
So if that type of person gets robbed of the last thing of her parents that exists....... I just don't see how I would keep that party together as a DM and her character goes that route.
I laid out some options to the rogue player. Under the guise of "I need to write new stuff depending on your plans." I basically gave him options of fake finding/stealing it back to gain false favor, to get his face beat in when they find it, or since his characters parents were horrible to him he could make an actually good character arc of being immature when he sees people with strong parental ties. Learning and growing sorta thing.
Whatever you do, do not try to force feelings onto the player characters as a DM. The players get to play their characters -- not you. (With obvious exceptions such as magical mind control or when a player doesn't show up to the session and you have to control his or her PC.)
In consent-based (dice-less) MUSHes, there used to be an old acronym: ICA=ICC. It meant "In character actions have in character consequences." In other words, "don't do the crime if you don't want to RP doing the time." This player made his character's bed; now his character has to lie in it. If that means that the logical result of RP would be the rest of the PCs kicking his PC out of the party, then that's what happens. He can roll a new character, and maybe this time he won't make one who steals from his own party. I'd tell him, welcome to D&D. Choose wisely next time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd say let it play out and let the characters deal with it. However, probably warn the Rogue player privately that they will need to deal with the consequence.
Personally I hate this type of stuff at my table and tell new players that they can't play a character who isn't looking out for the team. With the exception being if we make it an explicit 'self-interest' campaign from the start and all players are into it.
All good advice, but definitely, the best one is to remember the consequences. Even if your party is enjoying his actions there are still going to be consequences in one way or another. Maybe he seems more shifty, and NPCs start asking other PCs if they can trust them. Follow that up with an insight check on the PC and maybe that NPC doesnt want to hire the adventurers to find their missing child now. Perhaps the kings advisor who was sent to fetch them realizes he doesnt want to be stuck in a carriage with a thief who would even steal from his friends. So he tells the party they can walk to the castle to 'maybe' do a well paying quest if they can all refrain from commiting crimes on their way there.
By adding friction to his playstyle and having his allies also have to give honest feedback he will then automatically react to it as his character, as your job is the plot and his is the story. He chooses his actions and how it resolves based on what you give him. This can help push him into a story arc that feels more like his decision, as his decisions got him there, and they are what need to get him out.
Maybe he doubles down, thats fine, consequences will continue as they should as he interacts with his world. But maybe, his character will realize he can possibly earn more by not stealing than he can by stealing due to his reputation as an adventurer.
Either way, put plot down that addresses what he does instead of ignoring it, but without forcing him into a corner. Put him to the test, let him help guide the results.
Whatever you do, do not try to force feelings onto the player characters as a DM. The players get to play their characters -- not you. (With obvious exceptions such as magical mind control or when a player doesn't show up to the session and you have to control his or her PC.)
In consent-based (dice-less) MUSHes, there used to be an old acronym: ICA=ICC. It meant "In character actions have in character consequences." In other words, "don't do the crime if you don't want to RP doing the time." This player made his character's bed; now his character has to lie in it. If that means that the logical result of RP would be the rest of the PCs kicking his PC out of the party, then that's what happens. He can roll a new character, and maybe this time he won't make one who steals from his own party. I'd tell him, welcome to D&D. Choose wisely next time.
This is spot on.
We have this in a party I play in, but to a far more extreme level. Our sorcerer is outright evil and we're constantly haunted by a Revenant that wants revenge because he slaughtered a whole town. Our paladin fell, and cares for nobody but himself. Our Artificer is cowardly and rather than fight, leapt out of a three story window, leaving the rest of us to deal with a bunch of ghosts. My own character started out Chaotic Good, with a strong moral compass. After the Artificer jumped from the window, I had severe doubts about allowing her to carry on with us, and she had to do a lot of grovelling. My toon plans to kill the Fallen paladin when an opportunity presents itself - but only after we've achieved our successes. The paladin player knows what a massive pain his character is to be around, and I don't think it's something that will come unexpectedly. The Sorcerer will need to be dealt with, but as our most powerful magician, I need him for the time being...
Players often feel that the game is their own personal playground, where they can do anything at all and NPCs (and other players) will just let them get away with it. In the campaign I run, this is very much not the case. Behave like a jerk, you'll get treated like a jerk. At level 1, one of my players walked into an empty tavern, stuck his feet on the bar and demanded free food, booze and to be brought women. The barkeep was intimidated, went off and rounded up 15 farmers who came to the inn, beat the Fighter unconscious, stole his shoes and dumped him out in the street.
Have you asked the rogue if he would matter if the party would kill or cast aside him? I would be fine with it as long as he doesn't harm the other players and expects that his action can lead to an early grave.
I used to play a character who secretly was sacrificing souls to a demon to free his own soul and was part of a party of good-aligned folks. It was very exciting to see how far I could go before I got caught and for the other players it was a very cool twist.
I think what you have to ask yourself, and your players here, is do the players know that the Rogue characters player is having their character keep the dagger and are they play with it. I am not talking about characters here, but rather what the players know metawise. If the players are all aware IRL that the Rogue characters player is having his character keep the dagger IG and are okay with that, then I would say this is fine.
If on the other hand the player whose character the dagger belongs to doesn't know, or isn't okay with the Rogue characters player, having his character keep her players dagger IRL, then you might need to step in.
Otherwise, as long as the players are having fun and none of them are feeling picked on or bullied IRL, and are okay to continue the game, then just let it continue.
Just my person thoughts. That is how I would deal with it, but I'm no sage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
If on the other hand the player whose character the dagger belongs to doesn't know, or isn't okay with the Rogue characters player, having his character keep her players dagger IRL, then you might need to step in.
I disagree with this. Whether the original dagger's owner is happy/unhappy about it is not an issue for the player who stole it, it's an issue for the player feeling upset. If they genuinely were, they need to be reminded that they're in an exciting fantasy game and adversity is part of that. They need to stop being upset by it. How on earth would that player cope if their character died? And character death has to be a possibility at all times, or the game becomes a Visual Novel (which it shouldn't).
Whether the original dagger's owner is happy/unhappy about it is not an issue for the player who stole it, it's an issue for the player feeling upset.
Uhh... I would argue that, if we are all a bunch of friends and collaborators sitting around a gaming table, it darn well is an issue for one player if he/she is making another player upset. As players around the table, not just in D&D but in any game, roleplaying, board, or otherwise, we should not be dismissive of making other players at the table upset. We should want everyone to be happy and enjoy the game. Now, some people just are never happy, but that isn't really what we're talking about here. We're talking about player A taking an action that makes player B unhappy. The fact that B is upset 100% should factor into the calculus of player A when deciding how to play the game. If not, player A is being a jerk.
If they genuinely were, they need to be reminded that they're in an exciting fantasy game and adversity is part of that.
Tons of players and DMs around the world would not agree, as it is often prohibited around the gaming table to do "PVP" -- i.e., to use your skills, spells, abilities, or attacks against the other player characters in the party. PVP is a form of "adversity," to be sure -- but it is not always something everyone at the table agrees to. And if they didn't, Mr. Rogue needs to keep his sticky fingers to himself (or rather, to the NPCs).
They need to stop being upset by it
I do not recommend going down the route of telling other players how to feel about something. It generally doesn't work, and usually makes things worse (as you will recall from every time you have told an upset person to "stop being upset" in your everyday life).
How on earth would that player cope if their character died?
That is not relevant. Character death can happen for many reasons, including by consent without even the need for dice. Character death usually comes at the hands of NPCs controlled by the DM, who is an impartial referee and is making objective determinations. A fellow player at the gaming table is not the DM, and is not an impartial referee. Unlike the DM, who does not gain anything from an NPC killing (or stealing from) your character, the fellow player, in general, does have something to gain from stealing -- his character gains the value of whatever item he stole from you. The other player is therefore not impartial. There is an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that a character can die. There is not an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that players are going to snipe at each other through the medium of their PCs.
And character death has to be a possibility at all times, or the game becomes a Visual Novel (which it shouldn't).
That is your opinion. Lots of people do not want to have character death and may even house rule away things like death saving throws, ruling instead that 0 hp or less = unconscious and that's just... it. This might turn the game into something you don't like, but saying what D&D should, or (your word) "shouldn't" be, is well above your pay grade as a mere consumer of the product.
You might want to talk to the Rogue player and ask him about his character's motivation for withholding the dagger. Maybe there was a specific reason? Or maybe he did it just because.
Unfortunately it's very alluring esp. for new players to manufacture adversity in party, either by lying to party members or actively sabotaging them. I think a lot of this comes from "epic D&D tales" other people share or even flat out brag about. You know, when you talk with some guys who played this amazing session and this guy brags how he managed to pull a prank on the party's paladin because he was too uptight.
I am a firm believer in some sort of loose social contract between party members to create an adventuring party and guys who sabotage this effort "just because" do not fit well unfortunately.
Unfortunately there is no better way of handling it than letting it play out. Maybe the rest of the party will assume the burden of the social contract and then they will rough the thief a bit and warn him that it is the last time they tolerate this behavior, dunno. I am not saying that they should all like each other and never go against each other (I don't mean fight though) - it reminds me of several episodes of Critical Role where similar situation happened (one party member drawing blade against the other with a tense conversation) but they all upheld that unspoken contract to somehow resolve the situation.
If this doesn't work because neither side will budge then I'd let it play out until the end, let them kill the rogue, let the player roll another character and maybe set some ground rules to ensure this never happens again.
Oh btw. if they are a couple IRL, make sure it's not something they had planned - maybe she is ok with it and they have a specific interaction in mind once it is revealed that he has the dagger? Maybe they want to kick him out and he wants to be on his own to reflect on his own feelings towards the party and then return to save the day when the rest need him most (think Han Solo in A New Hope)? Who knows.
Whether the original dagger's owner is happy/unhappy about it is not an issue for the player who stole it, it's an issue for the player feeling upset.
Uhh... I would argue that, if we are all a bunch of friends and collaborators sitting around a gaming table, it darn well is an issue for one player if he/she is making another player upset. As players around the table, not just in D&D but in any game, roleplaying, board, or otherwise, we should not be dismissive of making other players at the table upset. We should want everyone to be happy and enjoy the game. Now, some people just are never happy, but that isn't really what we're talking about here. We're talking about player A taking an action that makes player B unhappy. The fact that B is upset 100% should factor into the calculus of player A when deciding how to play the game. If not, player A is being a jerk.
If they genuinely were, they need to be reminded that they're in an exciting fantasy game and adversity is part of that.
Tons of players and DMs around the world would not agree, as it is often prohibited around the gaming table to do "PVP" -- i.e., to use your skills, spells, abilities, or attacks against the other player characters in the party. PVP is a form of "adversity," to be sure -- but it is not always something everyone at the table agrees to. And if they didn't, Mr. Rogue needs to keep his sticky fingers to himself (or rather, to the NPCs).
They need to stop being upset by it
I do not recommend going down the route of telling other players how to feel about something. It generally doesn't work, and usually makes things worse (as you will recall from every time you have told an upset person to "stop being upset" in your everyday life).
How on earth would that player cope if their character died?
That is not relevant. Character death can happen for many reasons, including by consent without even the need for dice. Character death usually comes at the hands of NPCs controlled by the DM, who is an impartial referee and is making objective determinations. A fellow player at the gaming table is not the DM, and is not an impartial referee. Unlike the DM, who does not gain anything from an NPC killing (or stealing from) your character, the fellow player, in general, does have something to gain from stealing -- his character gains the value of whatever item he stole from you. The other player is therefore not impartial. There is an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that a character can die. There is not an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that players are going to snipe at each other through the medium of their PCs.
And character death has to be a possibility at all times, or the game becomes a Visual Novel (which it shouldn't).
That is your opinion. Lots of people do not want to have character death and may even house rule away things like death saving throws, ruling instead that 0 hp or less = unconscious and that's just... it. This might turn the game into something you don't like, but saying what D&D should, or (your word) "shouldn't" be, is well above your pay grade as a mere consumer of the product.
You're suggesting that a person playing a game can be reasonably upset about the location of an imaginary dagger. This is not reasonable, assuming that all of the players are aged 11 or above. If the players are all younger children then I guess you can't expect an adult response from them. But you shouldn't tell one player he has to play his character differently because another player isn't willing to let the story develop or see where it goes. If the dagger-wanting player is so heavily invested in their character that it actually causes them distress, then they've lost their grip on reality. Their whims are not more important than those of the other players.
You claim both that we shouldn't tell players how they ought to feel or not feel, and then say that we have to tell the Rogue player how he has to behave because he's making someone else upset by playing his character the way that he wants to play it. What you're really doing is just siding with the player who perceives that they are somehow suffering because an imaginary dagger is in another character's possession. But they aren't suffering, it's a pouty-lipped, childish reaction to something happening in a game.
If you play without the possibility of character death, then that's down to you. However, at that point you might as well play without rules at all since there is no point rolling for anything, all enemies will be overcome, and nobody was ever in peril. I appreciate that if your players are very young, then you might just fudge a lot of rolls to keep them alive to avoid tears, and of course, if your adult players aren't interested in playing with rules then you can dispense with them completely. But if a DM is ensuring that characters survive no matter how they put themselves in danger, then I don't know what game you're playing, but it's not a version of DnD that I recognise.
Regarding what's "In my pay grade" to talk about, you realise you're telling me what you think DnD should or shouldn't be, and have equally little authority on the matter? You make sweeping generalisations about "most tables" and what "most players" think with zero authority to do so.
You're suggesting that a person playing a game can be reasonably upset about the location of an imaginary dagger. This is not reasonable, assuming that all of the players are aged 11 or above. If the players are all younger children then I guess you can't expect an adult response from them. But you shouldn't tell one player he has to play his character differently because another player isn't willing to let the story develop or see where it goes. If the dagger-wanting player is so heavily invested in their character that it actually causes them distress, then they've lost their grip on reality. Their whims are not more important than those of the other players.
You claim both that we shouldn't tell players how they ought to feel or not feel, and then say that we have to tell the Rogue player how he has to behave because he's making someone else upset by playing his character the way that he wants to play it. What you're really doing is just siding with the player who perceives that they are somehow suffering because an imaginary dagger is in another character's possession. But they aren't suffering, it's a pouty-lipped, childish reaction to something happening in a game.
If you play without the possibility of character death, then that's down to you. However, at that point you might as well play without rules at all since there is no point rolling for anything, all enemies will be overcome, and nobody was ever in peril. I appreciate that if your players are very young, then you might just fudge a lot of rolls to keep them alive to avoid tears, and of course, if your adult players aren't interested in playing with rules then you can dispense with them completely. But if a DM is ensuring that characters survive no matter how they put themselves in danger, then I don't know what game you're playing, but it's not a version of DnD that I recognise.
Regarding what's "In my pay grade" to talk about, you realise you're telling me what you think DnD should or shouldn't be, and have equally little authority on the matter? You make sweeping generalisations about "most tables" and what "most players" think with zero authority to do so.
It's a nice rhetoric trick but you know very well it's not about the "location of a dagger" but about a player who is actively bullying another player with his character. Now, in this instance the OP has said at least once that the victim is ok with the situation but whenever interactions between players are described in various sources, someone bullying other character with his under the guise of "it's not me, that's what my character would do" is a huge red flag.
People gather at the table to have fun. If they have fun backstabbing each other and having antagonistic relationships between their characters, then it's fine. If one player decides that their character starts sabotaging the party against the interest of other players then it's time to say goodbye to the character and discuss the style of this adventuring party. Because both of those playstyles require some form of social contract between the whole group (the DM might not want to run a campaign when everyone runs away because there is no reason to stick with each other for instance).
Stealing an important character item from another character is a character vs character as well as player vs player situation.
You need to figure out the underlying assumptions your players are making during the game. Do all of your players know the rogue has the dagger and they are role playing the interactions? Or, as sounds more likely from your description, the rogue character has stolen the dagger and the other players are unaware?
Most parties are put together with an element of trust involved. The PLAYERS often assume that the players of the other characters are acting in the best interests of the other characters. When this trust is broken by the DM and one or more other players secretly harming the another player (by taking the characters stuff or otherwise negatively affecting the character), then the PLAYERs involved can often react negatively since a fundamental element of trust has been broken.The player will often feel betrayed even if it is a fantasy character with an imaginary missing dagger.
This is the type of thing that should be discussed at a session 0 - if secret pvp interactions may occur within the party then letting the players know lets them roleplay how much their characters trust the other characters in the party. Usually, parties come together with very limited narrative background, they may not have known each other for long, but the players invest far more trust in the other players than their characters should under such circumstances where the characters really don't know much about each other.
Also, I suspect that any justification the rogue has for stealing the dagger is pretty far fetched. What makes this dagger any more special than any other dagger the character has come across? The rogue presumably doesn't know the other character that well since if they did they would probably know how important it was and probably would not steal it. Why would the rogue want to take an action that will clearly cause a rift with another party member?Aren't they supposed to be working towards a common goal?
From what little you have revealed, the more likely explanation is that the rogue player wants to do something to bug his girlfriend (maybe the rogue player thinks it is funny), and you are enabling it by accepting whatever far fetched role playing excuse the rogue is giving for stealing this specific dagger. Honestly, it sounds like far more real world player interactions coming through in game actions and decisions that probably wouldn't make much sense in character. I'd suggest having a chat with the rogue player and defusing the issue before it becomes a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Game is going great. Everyone is new, loves it, and really invested.
The ONLY thing that I see coming is one PC just picking on his girlfriend's PC. Her character has an ornate dagger from her parents as the only thing she has left from a monster attack, yada yada.
At some point she got captured and weapons/armor stripped away. He, being a thief, went to retrieve them, succeeded but withheld the blade.
She thinks the cult still has the knife. She and another player already have told me this is "good" as they will find object later and the enemy has a homing beacon. Smart. Except when the spell points them to the PC. I FULLY expect the fighter to beat the HELL out of the rogue. Which is fine.
The question is, in a real scenario how does the rogue even continue being allowed around the group? The rogue's background has motivations, from me, as to why he's with them. But, they might not feel that's needed. In fact 3 of the players are very good aligned and I don't see them ever trusting him if just playing true to the characters.
My thought is to "force" a feeling of compassion or forgiveness as a DM. But I feel that pulls away from the player control.
Like I said everything else is top notch, although they absolutely mess up a lot in hilarious ways cuz we are new.
I think the big thing is whether the players are having fun with it or not. Some groups can deal with a little internal fighting and laugh about it the whole way. In other groups, people's real life feelings get hurt and it can lead to the group falling apart. So the big question is, which kind of group do you have? If they can fight it out and all still be friends afterwards, then let it play out and see where it goes; it could end up as a part of the rogue's character development and fun for everyone. If it seems like people (not characters) will get upset, then you need to step in with an out-of-character discussion with the rogue's player. He'll say something like 'that's what my character would do' and you reply with: No. 1, you are in charge of your character, not the other way around. It can only ever do what you make it do, so you are being a jerk, not your character. Don't try to hide jack ass behavior behind role playing. No. 2, at some point, everyone needs to realize this is a game and you're all on the same team, so stop being mean to your teammates.
Also, it's a good idea for the future for the players to have motivations from them as to why they're all together (as opposed to you imposing them upon the rogue from outside). That's a handy thing to do in Session 0 while they are building a party.
You can force the PCs to have compassion or forgiveness. Maybe. You can't control the players though, and if they feel unsafe, got at or whatever they energy at the table is going to shift. Maybe create some scenarios where the Rogue shows his value, saves them, sticks up for them or whatever. Also, if it wasn't discussed in a Session 0, maybe have a little mini-session the next time you meet. Or ask all players separately, how they'd feel about various scenarios, including things of this type.
It's all in game issue. It is an Arcane Trickster Rogue. SO this kinda make sense. I don't think anyone at the table is or will be mad. It's legitimately a character problem. The target is a zero-nonsense and has so far been "none of your business" and "thanks but no thanks" type of person when any of the RP about her motivations or goals come into play. Not loner or edge-lord type, she's actually quite polite and re-assuring. Just not wanting to burden people with her issues along with a prideful sense of SHE must be the one to finish her quest.
So if that type of person gets robbed of the last thing of her parents that exists....... I just don't see how I would keep that party together as a DM and her character goes that route.
I laid out some options to the rogue player. Under the guise of "I need to write new stuff depending on your plans." I basically gave him options of fake finding/stealing it back to gain false favor, to get his face beat in when they find it, or since his characters parents were horrible to him he could make an actually good character arc of being immature when he sees people with strong parental ties. Learning and growing sorta thing.
Whatever you do, do not try to force feelings onto the player characters as a DM. The players get to play their characters -- not you. (With obvious exceptions such as magical mind control or when a player doesn't show up to the session and you have to control his or her PC.)
In consent-based (dice-less) MUSHes, there used to be an old acronym: ICA=ICC. It meant "In character actions have in character consequences." In other words, "don't do the crime if you don't want to RP doing the time." This player made his character's bed; now his character has to lie in it. If that means that the logical result of RP would be the rest of the PCs kicking his PC out of the party, then that's what happens. He can roll a new character, and maybe this time he won't make one who steals from his own party. I'd tell him, welcome to D&D. Choose wisely next time.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd say let it play out and let the characters deal with it. However, probably warn the Rogue player privately that they will need to deal with the consequence.
Personally I hate this type of stuff at my table and tell new players that they can't play a character who isn't looking out for the team. With the exception being if we make it an explicit 'self-interest' campaign from the start and all players are into it.
All good advice, but definitely, the best one is to remember the consequences. Even if your party is enjoying his actions there are still going to be consequences in one way or another. Maybe he seems more shifty, and NPCs start asking other PCs if they can trust them. Follow that up with an insight check on the PC and maybe that NPC doesnt want to hire the adventurers to find their missing child now. Perhaps the kings advisor who was sent to fetch them realizes he doesnt want to be stuck in a carriage with a thief who would even steal from his friends. So he tells the party they can walk to the castle to 'maybe' do a well paying quest if they can all refrain from commiting crimes on their way there.
By adding friction to his playstyle and having his allies also have to give honest feedback he will then automatically react to it as his character, as your job is the plot and his is the story. He chooses his actions and how it resolves based on what you give him. This can help push him into a story arc that feels more like his decision, as his decisions got him there, and they are what need to get him out.
Maybe he doubles down, thats fine, consequences will continue as they should as he interacts with his world. But maybe, his character will realize he can possibly earn more by not stealing than he can by stealing due to his reputation as an adventurer.
Either way, put plot down that addresses what he does instead of ignoring it, but without forcing him into a corner. Put him to the test, let him help guide the results.
This is spot on.
We have this in a party I play in, but to a far more extreme level. Our sorcerer is outright evil and we're constantly haunted by a Revenant that wants revenge because he slaughtered a whole town. Our paladin fell, and cares for nobody but himself. Our Artificer is cowardly and rather than fight, leapt out of a three story window, leaving the rest of us to deal with a bunch of ghosts. My own character started out Chaotic Good, with a strong moral compass. After the Artificer jumped from the window, I had severe doubts about allowing her to carry on with us, and she had to do a lot of grovelling. My toon plans to kill the Fallen paladin when an opportunity presents itself - but only after we've achieved our successes. The paladin player knows what a massive pain his character is to be around, and I don't think it's something that will come unexpectedly. The Sorcerer will need to be dealt with, but as our most powerful magician, I need him for the time being...
Players often feel that the game is their own personal playground, where they can do anything at all and NPCs (and other players) will just let them get away with it. In the campaign I run, this is very much not the case. Behave like a jerk, you'll get treated like a jerk. At level 1, one of my players walked into an empty tavern, stuck his feet on the bar and demanded free food, booze and to be brought women. The barkeep was intimidated, went off and rounded up 15 farmers who came to the inn, beat the Fighter unconscious, stole his shoes and dumped him out in the street.
Have you asked the rogue if he would matter if the party would kill or cast aside him? I would be fine with it as long as he doesn't harm the other players and expects that his action can lead to an early grave.
I used to play a character who secretly was sacrificing souls to a demon to free his own soul and was part of a party of good-aligned folks. It was very exciting to see how far I could go before I got caught and for the other players it was a very cool twist.
I think what you have to ask yourself, and your players here, is do the players know that the Rogue characters player is having their character keep the dagger and are they play with it. I am not talking about characters here, but rather what the players know metawise. If the players are all aware IRL that the Rogue characters player is having his character keep the dagger IG and are okay with that, then I would say this is fine.
If on the other hand the player whose character the dagger belongs to doesn't know, or isn't okay with the Rogue characters player, having his character keep her players dagger IRL, then you might need to step in.
Otherwise, as long as the players are having fun and none of them are feeling picked on or bullied IRL, and are okay to continue the game, then just let it continue.
Just my person thoughts. That is how I would deal with it, but I'm no sage.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I disagree with this. Whether the original dagger's owner is happy/unhappy about it is not an issue for the player who stole it, it's an issue for the player feeling upset. If they genuinely were, they need to be reminded that they're in an exciting fantasy game and adversity is part of that. They need to stop being upset by it. How on earth would that player cope if their character died? And character death has to be a possibility at all times, or the game becomes a Visual Novel (which it shouldn't).
Uhh... I would argue that, if we are all a bunch of friends and collaborators sitting around a gaming table, it darn well is an issue for one player if he/she is making another player upset. As players around the table, not just in D&D but in any game, roleplaying, board, or otherwise, we should not be dismissive of making other players at the table upset. We should want everyone to be happy and enjoy the game. Now, some people just are never happy, but that isn't really what we're talking about here. We're talking about player A taking an action that makes player B unhappy. The fact that B is upset 100% should factor into the calculus of player A when deciding how to play the game. If not, player A is being a jerk.
Tons of players and DMs around the world would not agree, as it is often prohibited around the gaming table to do "PVP" -- i.e., to use your skills, spells, abilities, or attacks against the other player characters in the party. PVP is a form of "adversity," to be sure -- but it is not always something everyone at the table agrees to. And if they didn't, Mr. Rogue needs to keep his sticky fingers to himself (or rather, to the NPCs).
I do not recommend going down the route of telling other players how to feel about something. It generally doesn't work, and usually makes things worse (as you will recall from every time you have told an upset person to "stop being upset" in your everyday life).
That is not relevant. Character death can happen for many reasons, including by consent without even the need for dice. Character death usually comes at the hands of NPCs controlled by the DM, who is an impartial referee and is making objective determinations. A fellow player at the gaming table is not the DM, and is not an impartial referee. Unlike the DM, who does not gain anything from an NPC killing (or stealing from) your character, the fellow player, in general, does have something to gain from stealing -- his character gains the value of whatever item he stole from you. The other player is therefore not impartial. There is an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that a character can die. There is not an implicit understanding at most gaming tables that players are going to snipe at each other through the medium of their PCs.
That is your opinion. Lots of people do not want to have character death and may even house rule away things like death saving throws, ruling instead that 0 hp or less = unconscious and that's just... it. This might turn the game into something you don't like, but saying what D&D should, or (your word) "shouldn't" be, is well above your pay grade as a mere consumer of the product.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You might want to talk to the Rogue player and ask him about his character's motivation for withholding the dagger. Maybe there was a specific reason? Or maybe he did it just because.
Unfortunately it's very alluring esp. for new players to manufacture adversity in party, either by lying to party members or actively sabotaging them. I think a lot of this comes from "epic D&D tales" other people share or even flat out brag about. You know, when you talk with some guys who played this amazing session and this guy brags how he managed to pull a prank on the party's paladin because he was too uptight.
I am a firm believer in some sort of loose social contract between party members to create an adventuring party and guys who sabotage this effort "just because" do not fit well unfortunately.
Unfortunately there is no better way of handling it than letting it play out. Maybe the rest of the party will assume the burden of the social contract and then they will rough the thief a bit and warn him that it is the last time they tolerate this behavior, dunno. I am not saying that they should all like each other and never go against each other (I don't mean fight though) - it reminds me of several episodes of Critical Role where similar situation happened (one party member drawing blade against the other with a tense conversation) but they all upheld that unspoken contract to somehow resolve the situation.
If this doesn't work because neither side will budge then I'd let it play out until the end, let them kill the rogue, let the player roll another character and maybe set some ground rules to ensure this never happens again.
Oh btw. if they are a couple IRL, make sure it's not something they had planned - maybe she is ok with it and they have a specific interaction in mind once it is revealed that he has the dagger? Maybe they want to kick him out and he wants to be on his own to reflect on his own feelings towards the party and then return to save the day when the rest need him most (think Han Solo in A New Hope)? Who knows.
You're suggesting that a person playing a game can be reasonably upset about the location of an imaginary dagger. This is not reasonable, assuming that all of the players are aged 11 or above. If the players are all younger children then I guess you can't expect an adult response from them. But you shouldn't tell one player he has to play his character differently because another player isn't willing to let the story develop or see where it goes. If the dagger-wanting player is so heavily invested in their character that it actually causes them distress, then they've lost their grip on reality. Their whims are not more important than those of the other players.
You claim both that we shouldn't tell players how they ought to feel or not feel, and then say that we have to tell the Rogue player how he has to behave because he's making someone else upset by playing his character the way that he wants to play it. What you're really doing is just siding with the player who perceives that they are somehow suffering because an imaginary dagger is in another character's possession. But they aren't suffering, it's a pouty-lipped, childish reaction to something happening in a game.
If you play without the possibility of character death, then that's down to you. However, at that point you might as well play without rules at all since there is no point rolling for anything, all enemies will be overcome, and nobody was ever in peril. I appreciate that if your players are very young, then you might just fudge a lot of rolls to keep them alive to avoid tears, and of course, if your adult players aren't interested in playing with rules then you can dispense with them completely. But if a DM is ensuring that characters survive no matter how they put themselves in danger, then I don't know what game you're playing, but it's not a version of DnD that I recognise.
Regarding what's "In my pay grade" to talk about, you realise you're telling me what you think DnD should or shouldn't be, and have equally little authority on the matter? You make sweeping generalisations about "most tables" and what "most players" think with zero authority to do so.
It's a nice rhetoric trick but you know very well it's not about the "location of a dagger" but about a player who is actively bullying another player with his character. Now, in this instance the OP has said at least once that the victim is ok with the situation but whenever interactions between players are described in various sources, someone bullying other character with his under the guise of "it's not me, that's what my character would do" is a huge red flag.
People gather at the table to have fun. If they have fun backstabbing each other and having antagonistic relationships between their characters, then it's fine. If one player decides that their character starts sabotaging the party against the interest of other players then it's time to say goodbye to the character and discuss the style of this adventuring party. Because both of those playstyles require some form of social contract between the whole group (the DM might not want to run a campaign when everyone runs away because there is no reason to stick with each other for instance).
Stealing an important character item from another character is a character vs character as well as player vs player situation.
You need to figure out the underlying assumptions your players are making during the game. Do all of your players know the rogue has the dagger and they are role playing the interactions? Or, as sounds more likely from your description, the rogue character has stolen the dagger and the other players are unaware?
Most parties are put together with an element of trust involved. The PLAYERS often assume that the players of the other characters are acting in the best interests of the other characters. When this trust is broken by the DM and one or more other players secretly harming the another player (by taking the characters stuff or otherwise negatively affecting the character), then the PLAYERs involved can often react negatively since a fundamental element of trust has been broken.The player will often feel betrayed even if it is a fantasy character with an imaginary missing dagger.
This is the type of thing that should be discussed at a session 0 - if secret pvp interactions may occur within the party then letting the players know lets them roleplay how much their characters trust the other characters in the party. Usually, parties come together with very limited narrative background, they may not have known each other for long, but the players invest far more trust in the other players than their characters should under such circumstances where the characters really don't know much about each other.
Also, I suspect that any justification the rogue has for stealing the dagger is pretty far fetched. What makes this dagger any more special than any other dagger the character has come across? The rogue presumably doesn't know the other character that well since if they did they would probably know how important it was and probably would not steal it. Why would the rogue want to take an action that will clearly cause a rift with another party member?Aren't they supposed to be working towards a common goal?
From what little you have revealed, the more likely explanation is that the rogue player wants to do something to bug his girlfriend (maybe the rogue player thinks it is funny), and you are enabling it by accepting whatever far fetched role playing excuse the rogue is giving for stealing this specific dagger. Honestly, it sounds like far more real world player interactions coming through in game actions and decisions that probably wouldn't make much sense in character. I'd suggest having a chat with the rogue player and defusing the issue before it becomes a problem.