|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:19AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
Hey, I am interessted in your opinions, what I should do after last nights play.
We're a lvl 14 group of 5. 2 Ghenasi, 1 Elf, 1 Halfling and me an Half-elf.
We're in a Drow-City overrun with Undead.
We're tasked by the Drow to kill a Necromancer (in exchange for them sheltering us), and are given a Drow-Companion do guide us through the city.
Everyone but me is very distrustfull to the companion.
We happen upon a 'fort' held by some runaway slaves (a bunch of Goblins, a Troll, 2 Minotaurs). They attack us on sight.
Two of our party-members have been slaves themselves (held in Thay), and the Defender suddenly has kind of a backflash and proposes to group up with the slaves against the Drow-Companion. (The foes didn't listen anyway).
We fell Troll and the Minotaurs, which don't give up, while the goblins just scratch us with their crossbows. The former-slave threatens the companion to not kill the goblins or she would be killed. She yields and moves on, while I kill 2 more goblins in passing. At that point the Defender attacks the companion and me, deceiving the rest of the group, that the companion and I where attacking him.
In the end the companion was dead and me beaten unconcious, I dropped our Leader, the Defender being badly bloodied.
That was the end of the session :D
Generally my char would trust more in her abilities to get out of the Drow-City and return to the surface on her own, than staying with these backstabbers. Common Sense says, that she probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark.
Plus: Why travel with someone that attacks companions when they disobey his wishes?
Even if my char would live to see the daylight again ... She'd leave the party.
Would you leave the party and create a new character or stay with them and see the task finished? Would you wait for the next long rest and slit the defenders throat?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 4:06AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
When I say "you" in this post, I mean "your character". Remember that.
When you sided with the Drow and killed some goblins when the defender threatened you not to, he no longer saw you as part of the group.
When you didn't surrender but chose to fight the group when the defender duped them, they also didn't see you as part of the group anymore.
I'd be surprised if they didn't kill you or kick you out of the group immediately at the start of the next session. I mean, you call them backstabbers, but you were the one who first went against their wishes and then started fighting them.
If they choose to be merciful, I'd be very thankful for that. I'd either try to get on their good side again, or promise to leave and never show my face again (thereby leaving the party, but that's no fun).
What I wouldn't do is slit the defender's throat. That's what insane and evil characters do, which I assume you're not. Not to mention that this action will bring about a f*ckton of out-of-game grief, which no-one wants.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 8:31AM
#3
|
|
|
Before doing anything, I strongly recommend the group talk out of game about accepting and adding onto others' ideas rather than blocking them. That would have allowed the group to navigate these tricky waters. Also, I would establish a PVP policy at the table: The results of attacks against other characters are determined by the target of those attacks - no rolls.
I'm not sure whether the DM or a player was playing the companion, but it looks like you blocked the defender player's ideas by attacking the goblins. (Why?) The companion character player was building on the offer of the defender player to give justification to his action (he said don't attack goblins because we want to team up and have them kill companion, companion obliged by attacking goblins giving him pretext). You could have easily gone with what the defender player wanted, provided it didn't contradict previously established fiction (like you having said the companion was your blood brother or something). You could have then added onto that offer if you needed to make it interesting for you as well as the defender (or rest of group for that matter).
This is not to say the defender player handled it well either. He's dealing with an out-of-game problem (player-to-player blocking) with an in-game method (attacking your character). Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.
Now that you understand the underlying problem, you can come to a solution. As players, you can discuss how it might be an interesting opportunity for the characters to try and mend the physical and emotional wounds that this incident have caused. Or you can decide it's better for your character to wander off into the sunset, perhaps returning someday as an NPC or villain under the DM's control. Then you can discuss how to onboard a new character. The point is, this should be discussed out-of-game and the results of that discussion then played out in-game. And going forward, you can all work on supporting each others ideas with acceptance and additions rather than blocking them.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:07AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2010
|
If they don't kill off your PC in his sleep, be thankful. If you are actually left alive, first thing you do when your PC wakes up is run, because they will probably kill you when they wake up. You pulled a dick move, not them. Bad idea.
RIP George! 4-21-11
RIP Abie! 1-2-13 Funny Forum Quotes
Show
 "You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?"
 "I cast Fireball."
 "I run like hell!
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat?
RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:32PM
#5
|
|
|
never just leave the game, try to stay true to your Role Playing as you can, but bend it a little when it come to the "Well my chr would just quit" moments. This way you’re not forced to make new characters every time you disagree with your party.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 1:05PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
never just leave the game, try to stay true to your Role Playing as you can, but bend it a little when it come to the "Well my chr would just quit" moments. This way you’re not forced to make new characters every time you disagree with your party.
Agreed. There's usually more than one plausible course of action any character "would" take.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:01PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
You didn't trust your companion enough to even ask WHY he didn't want you to kill the goblin? Or was it that you didn't respect your companion enough to hear him out, or at least attempt a reasonable explanation as to why it would be better to 'finish the job'.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:25PM
#8
|
|
|
I suppose I'm seeing this situation a bit differently than some of the other posters here.
So your fellow characters didn't trust the companion NPC. You did, the reasons for mistrust and trust are irrelevant.
The actions however were not.
The Defender character demands that you stop attacking the goblins. The companion did, you didn't. Your reason why you did is important but most likely not really my issue.
Defender attacks you and the NPC stating that you had attacked him. Going to go out on a limb here, the Defender clearly wanted the NPC gone. It almost seems as if the Defender used the goblins to attempt to goad the NPC into attacking them so he could attack the NPC. NPC doesn't play ball so the Defender attacks both of you anyway.
Other characters joined with the Defender and attack you. Clearly they could have killed you and didn't but also they clearly wanted the NPC dead or else they would have beaten them unconcious too. I'm not sure without a really good skill check the Defender could dupe the rest of the party into beleiving that you and the NPC attacked him.
If the you, the NPC and the Defender were in another room then that could be how but that also means the Defender wasn't defending the majority of the party. Also the party could have been in on it from the beginning. Only more info will answer that question for me.
However you attacked the rest of the party, surrendering would have been a way better move. You could have accused the Defender a liar, you could have pointed out the damage to him couldn't have come from you due to weapon damage and location. But you insisted on fighting back and dropped the Leader while bloodied the Defender.
Honestly I feel that there is stuff missing from this story.
Were you in the wrong here? Well you weren't until you attacked your fellow party members. If they wanted your character dead they would have done so. The issue now is about trust. If the Defender was willing to go so far as to lie to the entire party about what happend to get his way then most likely the Defender will do it again. Even still you showed how far you were willing to go to drop one player and almost dropped another one.
If you're good at bluffing you could tell the party the NPC had somehow charmed you. At this moment your actions are more damaging and obvious than the Defenders.
Might want to talk to the DM about the situation and then talk to your fellow players.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:43PM
#9
|
|
|
I'm not sure without a really good skill check the Defender could dupe the rest of the party into beleiving that you and the NPC attacked him.
...
If you're good at bluffing you could tell the party the NPC had somehow charmed you. At this moment your actions are more damaging and obvious than the Defenders.
Although it looks as though pvp with rolls is acceptable in this group (or at least tolerated to some extent), it should probably be mentioned that social skills like Bluff and Intimidate don't actually work on PCs unless the target agrees to it. All the more reason to use that as precedent for allowing any attempt against another PC to be determined by the target rather than the dice.
Might want to talk to the DM about the situation and then talk to your fellow players.
Good advice.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:49PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
Before doing anything, I strongly recommend the group talk out of game about accepting and adding onto others' ideas rather than blocking them. That would have allowed the group to navigate these tricky waters. Also, I would establish a PVP policy at the table: The results of attacks against other characters are determined by the target of those attacks - no rolls.
I'm not sure whether the DM or a player was playing the companion, but it looks like you blocked the defender player's ideas by attacking the goblins. (Why?) The companion character player was building on the offer of the defender player to give justification to his action (he said don't attack goblins because we want to team up and have them kill companion, companion obliged by attacking goblins giving him pretext). You could have easily gone with what the defender player wanted, provided it didn't contradict previously established fiction (like you having said the companion was your blood brother or something). You could have then added onto that offer if you needed to make it interesting for you as well as the defender (or rest of group for that matter).
This is not to say the defender player handled it well either. He's dealing with an out-of-game problem (player-to-player blocking) with an in-game method (attacking your character). Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.
Now that you understand the underlying problem, you can come to a solution. As players, you can discuss how it might be an interesting opportunity for the characters to try and mend the physical and emotional wounds that this incident have caused. Or you can decide it's better for your character to wander off into the sunset, perhaps returning someday as an NPC or villain under the DM's control. Then you can discuss how to onboard a new character. The point is, this should be discussed out-of-game and the results of that discussion then played out in-game. And going forward, you can all work on supporting each others ideas with acceptance and additions rather than blocking them.
You said: Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.
I see your point, sort of.
In game method:
P1: I say don't kill the goblin, he's just a poor slave. What do ya do? Ya murdered him. I guess our characters will either fight it out or go our separate ways.
P2: Bring it on!
(roll dice and resolve situation)
Out of game method:
P1: You just had to do it, didn't you, Harold? You have no respect for anything I have to say. I don't know why I play this stupid game with you... or anything, for that matter. You don't listen to me... you don't respect me... you don't...
P2: I've put up with you for 15 years, Margaret! 15 Years! And you're getting this mad over a game?... a GAME!?!
P1: SHUT UP! I'M TALKING! I WAN'T A DIVORCE, HAROLD!
P2: Now there it is! Ya been working late. Is that it? Just a friend? Is that it?
P1: Don't, Harold, don't... the kids...
P2: Ain't mine and you know it, Margaret. I've always known, Margie. Always. Always.
P1: Harold... what are you... Harold.... HAROLD!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Fade to Black as campaign ends.
Woody Allen, directing?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
