|
5 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 1:00PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
Iserith said....That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking,
Sometimes the player is thinking... "What would my character do in this situation".
When the answer is "shove a hot poker down the offending character's throat", the player might ask, instead "Is there a plausible reason why this character might stay with this party?" The answer might be "because I don't have a hot poker handy at the moment".
Well. I am pretty sure, I can get my hands on a hot poker somehow. I am a fire-sorcerres after all... there is probably even a poker in our bag of holding. 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 3:19PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2008
|
Yes, you (not your character, you) should leave the party. You're playing with somebody so selfish that they're willing to attack your character just to make the game go the way they want - and to lie to the other players about it. And you're playing with a DM who doesn't step in and tell that player to knock it off. Leave now, don't look back.
(Note: advice not valid for Paranoia games.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 2:35AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
Well, I prefer to play with a group where we can create our story, without being cuddled by the DM. We know that we can run into a party-wipe, and our characters may die from our actions, any time.
This 'incident' allows us to explore, what it means if the party is weakend, because they lose a member.
I know, that I am not going to play a new character for a little while, because it wouldn't be plausibel to just have a high-lvl character standing around the next corner. I'll join the DM in creating the next part of the story, playing NPCs, etc.
Was the defender player selfish - no doubt. But maybe it will shape his character to think twice before being rackless and rash, the next time, when another character doesn't go along with his plans.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 12:26PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2008
|
In the future what recommend (and the DM needs to support this) is any player conflict be resolved without the roll of the dice. Whether that is talking through the issue or the players narrating the outcome of any physical altercation, you will find that this is the most effect way to resolve player to player issues. Fighting it out never ends well, especiallly in a system that is based off team work and team synergy like 4E where the fight will rarely be balanced or fair.
Also, allowing other players to pursue their ideas will cut down on this issue. What difference would it have made had the party merely knocked the slaves unconscious rather than outright slay them? I will agree though that the defender attacking the party is the one that crossed the line - he should have just dealt with the fact that the party (or certain members of the party) dealt killing blows after it became obvious that the slaves were not listening to reason. You have to remmeber that the party is in a dangerous place and leaving enemies alive behind you could increase that danger significantly.
"The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
