Communism is good. But mostly in fiction most of the time XD in real life it always gets fucked up by ppwerful assholes.
But jokes aside, playing like this is like a regular BG3 game. If you see a good item for anyone in your party you buy it with everyone’s money. As long as everyone is equipped equally it would work at a regular table.
My current rogue started out sharing loot fairly but it’s become a running joke that she stashes so much she jingles when she walks. To be fair, half of the party actively don’t want money and she’ll share when asked (if she can’t get the five-finger discount on whatever the party’s trying to acquire) so essentially she’s acting as the party bank.
Personally I am of the opinion that some party rivalry is good. You stole that on your own? It’s yours, sure. It’s not real stuff after all. Who cares?!
But if you are obviously just taking shit in full view of everyone, in a hostile location, with no intention to share…well now that’s a dick move and won’t be tolerated. Still a good RPing opportunity. I have actually told people before: “my character needs to learn this lesson so please teach it to them”, before doing stuff like this. With the understanding in place, it’s a cool RP opportunity.
As with everything - discuss your game before you start playing it so that everyone is comfortable with the style of game you’re playing. Acrimony stems from people believing they’re playing different styles of game.
If you want to play a character who steals from the group or otherwise acts to the detriment of the group as part of their characterization - then make sure the other players are going to be happy with, and enjoy the style of game you’re bringing to the table.
If you’re designing a character who steals from the group or keeps loot for themselves, you have to ask yourself… are you making the kind of character that the other characters would want to travel with? If your character is just an asshole all the time, why would they not just… part ways with your character? In real life, would you hang out with someone who kept stealing your wallet or refusing to pay their share of the bills in restaurants or pubs? “I’m just roleplaying my character” yeah, well they’re roleplaying their characters too… They’re not all putzes, and if spott a raw deal you gotta be prepared for them to ditch your parasitic ass.
If you’re relying on them keeping you around simply because it’s a game and “it’s not fair to exclude your character and it wouldn’t be fun if they did that”, then you have to be willing to make concessions too (like being open to a full loot share), because it’s also not fun to have another character constantly taking all the good stuff for themselves.
Ask yourself if your fun is at the detriment of everyone else’s fun. If you’re making the game less fun for everyone else on the regular… are they going to want you in the game at all?
DnD adventuring parties are, at their core, a group of people who get along, working together, for their common benefit. If you are designing a character who “doesn’t play well with others” it’s important to understand that your character’s personality is pretty antithetical to the game’s core expectations.
Definitely, if you’re considering contentious characters like this, also consider making a character with the capacity for personal growth. Maybe you start out solitary and paranoid, or greedy and secretive… but you grow to trust and work with these other people in time. Maybe they learn to be less selfish and make sacrifices for the group. Once these people have saved your life a bunch of times, maybe they realize things are more important than money. Character growth makes for a good story, after all, and that moment where your character makes that leap can make for a great story moment… just… don’t hold onto that growth for too long, because the character might be annoying before that realization.
People aren’t rigid in their personalities. Yes, a lot of RPGs make you write down some traits on your character sheet, but if you view them as hard and fast rules that never change for an entire campaign, your characters will feel one-dimensional and shallow.
@DoodlePoodle has an excellent comic about this, that illustrates (hah) the point very effectively.
Always remember that the other player characters have agency, and opinions. If your character doesn’t play well with others, those others have no obligation to play with them.
I play an arcane trickster rogue who sometimes goes off on her own little heists to make some money and she doesn’t always share the rewards of that.
Also if she really put her butt in danger to get to a secret chest she might take a lil finder fee before anyone has a chance to look.
Sharing loot is ideal and generally I do so but I think it can be fun flavor to be a little greedy. I’m also super ready to be caught ic and deal with the ic consequences of her actions.
Also she’s very loose with her money and buys a lot of gifts and carousing so it sorta evens out
Remember. I said racing to investigate. Meaning its shared loot, not a single mission. If you are the only one risking your ass, I wouldnt be against you keeping it.
In the end it boils down to trust. The party will (most likely) regularly expose themselves to mortal danger. They need to be able to trust each other with their lives. If a character habitually cheats them out of loot they might find it hard to trust that character. So why would they travel with this person?
This doesn’t rule out playing an untrustworthy character but it makes it harder to justify their presence, especially over long periods of time. A dodgy thief might be needed for one quest but why are they kept around afterwards? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s a sliding scale. Your arcane trickster doesn’t sound like she’s super far down the scale so she’s probably good even if the rest of the party notices. Or maybe she never even hid it in the first place. That also works.
It kinda limits the spectrum of playable characters though right? The others can notice that that’s going on and either go PvP or kick the person out of the party. It can actually be a cool character arc to teach the character to share loot.
Of the player themselves aren’t able to learn that though… do the same as above but irl?
It is entirely reasonable to limit the spectrum of playable characters to those who have some motivation to play the game with the other players. Stealing loot will reasonably upset the other players (not just the characters), by reducing the ways in which they can play the game. So no, it’s not just creative freedom, it’s being a dick. It’s choosing to be a dick. GMs telling you not to do that aren’t just limiting your creative freedom, they’re telling you to stop being a dick or they’ll stop playing with you.
Someone that says : my character wouldnt be sharing gold. Then I say : but who made that character hmm ? You have imagination. Use it to justify not being an ass to your party.
That’s his whole point, you just shoehorned a third of the alignment system out of your sessions with that one move. If that’s what you and your players want then that’s fine, but it’s certainly not better like you seem to think.
Anyone who thinks evil characters have to be jerks to their own party isn’t playing an evil character, they’re playing stupid characters.
If anything, evil characters that are not morons should be more fair and more protective of the party, because if they get caught doing something against the group, in their own mindset it is perfectly justified to immediately kill them over it. And even if they don’t get killed, finding another competent group you can work with to accomplish your goals is difficult.
Evil characters can and should genuinely care about some people. They should also find some people to be sufficiently useful tools, even if they don’t genuinely care for them, that maintaining them is worth some inconvenience. Anything less is being stupid evil. I can play dozens of different very evil characters that do not fuck over their party. Some of them can even get along in a party of mostly good people.
So does it remove some character concepts from sessions? Yes: the stupid, antisocial types that cannot work with a team and are dumb enough they’ll get themselves killed before reaching fourth level probably.
If theres going to be a party then the players are responsible for coming up with a justification why their character would agree to work together with the rest of the party. I will always welcome even evil characters if and only if their player can actually show that they are capable of the necessary teamwork. The evil guy helping good guys begrudginly because they get something out of it is a classic trope and that’s all fine.
Meanwhile, if your alignment is the classic Chaotic Stupid and you go full murderhobo and backstabber, why would the rest of the part ever tolerate that? They’ll turn up face downwards in the nearest ditch and the player can try coming up with a new character that actually wants to be in the party.
You’re probably not going to be telling your good party that you’re evil and just using them, so anything to help blend in and achieve your goals is a good thing. I constantly use my Chaotic Evil Cleric of Cyric this way, and deception is part of the game plan. I can pretend to be good, if only to better serve my evil god. Now if the thing in question just happens to be something I need for my evil goals, but I can’t just tell them, I could simply wait until we rest and steal it while I’m on watch.
You can’t beat your dogs and expect them to be useful. True evil is teaching them to do what you need, and then letting them sacrifice themselves for your benefit.
I could make it work. They need to not be suspicious, so be generous with them. They need to eat and aleep, so they need some money. Same with their inventory care.
And why do you need so much money ?
Plus at some point, there is this exchange that will take place :
Player : my character has no reason to share/be with the party
Good DM : great. Now go back to character creation and make a character that will work at a minimum with the party.
Giving them minimal means of survival is not the same as “sharing loot”. I’m pretty sure the party would be just as unhappy if they were treated this way as if they just didn’t get any cut
Story can be as creative as you want, forcing the 4 other people at the table (DM and 3 other players) to adjust to how YOU have decided to play is a dick move.
If the other players don’t like it either change or leave, you’re the asshole there. If the players are fine with it, then cool, there are no issues. But I’ve played with plenty of people who are fucking stupid and made characters who don’t belong in the party. One got arrested before we even had a reason to let him into our party and then we rescue him and are like this shit is gonna explode you can come with us if you want to live and they’re like idk my character wouldn’t trust them. And like… dude we just saved your ass and are offering to literally save your life but if you wanna be a dick have fun rolling a new character when yours blows up. Like we’re a team if you’re gonna fight us the whole way you’re dead. Read the fucking group.
I mean yeah that’s definitely something to be upfront about. Not everyone plays RPGs purely cooperatively though. It can be plenty of fun to have the player characters be separated but moving through the same world and getting into interconnected shenanigans. It is way harder on the DM and not every Player is comfortable with confronting other players as adversaries.
Just claiming one is something “we don’t do here” in general is a bit weird in my opinion. If it’s meant as “not on my table”: yeah sure your game your rules
But adjusting is how EVERYONE should be playing...not everything about every character is positive. Some might have a curse, some might have culture, religion
You have to adjust for all those things, and if the characters aren't disagreeing at some point then that would make for a pretty boring character makeup wouldn't it?
What matters is what you do when that conflict occurs. The only thing i've really seen that would be a hitch would be that "what if PvP isn't allowed?", since that would put the hoarder at an unfair position in the group. But if the group is allowed to interact normally, then the other players should be able to step in if their characters don't like how the other one is acting. It shouldn't need to be handled at the meta level.
The way a party is going to be adjusting to a backstabbing murderhobo is to throw them out of the party at the earliest convenience. It’s the only realistic outcome. If you want your character to be a part of the party, it’s your job to come up with a backstory and personality that makes them willing to work with the party, not the others’.
The reason all of this is skipped on a meta level is that most people want to get to the actual adventuring instead of trying to figure out one good reason why they’d ever keep someone’s unique evil snowflake in tow.
Idk, depends. Some people LOVE PvP and all and betraying the party and etc. others are just… done with it. People who do that are typically the same in every party. Gets old. It’s like how people hate playing with the lawful stupid paladin and having to knock his ass out if they want to question someone or etc. after a while it gets fucking old. For some having to plan out how to do so behind the paladins back can be fun, for others it’s a chore and annoying. Always talk to your group and find a way to play that works best.
Generally, I’d rather conflict come from roleplay that’s interactive. Have the crazy person trying to negotiate impossible terms in the middle of an enemy base while the anxious person flips out telepathically trying to keep him in check, or anything that keeps it cooperative while allowing characters to shine and actually interact well. Stealing loot before anyone can see is not particularly interactive or fun.
I've never played tabletop RPG but to me such people just sound like they want to be an asshole and only feel safe enough to play it out ingame. This doesn't seem to be really about the game.
One day you might get lucky and try this magnificient game. And you will see that most of the times, playing with people acting or being assholes is not fun.
Everytime someone talks about betrayal between players, I have a weird flashback. Back in high school, we were playing baseball. But there was a new shitty thing assholes did during the game. Basically, if you were on a step after hitting the ball and moving to one of the next steps, you could try to run to the next ANYTIME. Meaning the people trowing the ball also had to check every single person that was on the field to see if they tried to run at any point.
The reason it makes me think of that is that its not fun to constantly having to watch your back from people that are not supposed to be a threat. How can the pitcher concentrate on throwing the ball if they have to look everywhere all the time ?
Oh sure, some people could like it, but I could say the same of a sandpaper dildo. Most of the people would prefer to not having to take care of keeping an eye on their supposed allies all the time.
And this is just ingame. Out of game, you will see the player act as an ass. You will know about them stealing, backstabbing, or going against you even if your character doesnt. And it can be fun, just like a sandpaper dildo can be enjoyable, but not without consent and not most of the time.
Oh I dont care if its in the rules, because this 20 years ago was the first and the last time that I ever saw a match using it. I played a few times and I never saw it in action. Probably because outside of the professionnal circuits most casuals agree its shit to play with.
But I have no idea and I dont care. I wouldnt play a match with this shit in action. I would prefer to play fallout 76 than a baseball match with this in, IF were talking about the same thing.
Giving them minimal means of survival is not the same as “sharing loot”. I’m pretty sure the party would be just as unhappy if they were treated this way as if they just didn’t get any cut
Does your game allow PvP combat actions? If not, loot sharing should be mandatory because it is, inherently, a PvP action. The normal method of resolving such a conflict would be to beat the shit out of the offender until they come around, but if that’s not allowed, what in-game resolution is there? As such, an out-of-game resolution is needed, and that is compulsory loot division.
This is why I don’t like most dnd dms. Ruling out betrayal because it’s ‘a coop game’ is just as crazy as forcing every session into being a 3 hour combat encounter. If I wanted to play a coop loot dungeon crawler there’s about a million video games that automate the dice rolls and loot sharing, lettimg me focus on the action and the loot.
Tabletop’s role is to promote emergent story telling, not a more cumbersome way to handle combat and loot. If all a DM can do is stick to their contrived storyline and throw combat at you without facilitating emergent story telling, they’re just a worse version of a video game. I’ll go play Baldurs Gate instead.
Ironically I'm pretty sure Baldur's gate supports PvP, right down to having the "Dark Urge" character who absolutely would screw with the team by existing.
If you introduce backstabbing and betrayal into the game without the other players having previously agreed on it, you’re the problem player that tables don’t want. If, as a group, you’ve already agreed to have that kind of game dynamic, then yeah obviously that’s fine.
Add comment