Honestly I don't see anyone blocking another. It was a clash of sentiments. My character was sticking to the quest and to her "you won't like me when I am angry*"-stance. The Defender with his wish to not slaughter the goblins. The Ranger with his "I'll wait my chance to make a pin-cushion out of that drow"
The DM informed the Defender that the former slaves wouldn't group up with us. Once the Drow-Companion was bloodied the DM informed me, that the party was doomed if the companion was to get away now.
If the Drow-companion and my char would have succeeded and made the rest of the party yield (it would have been an astonishing feat that would have make bards create songs and operas about), then the defender-player would be in my position
(*angry is a term do be defined on a moment to moment base and granted to exist most of the times)
@crzyhawk: Maybe, if that was established. Still means blocking was going on which was the source of this issue, why intraparty violence broke out, and why the OP's character may have to leave the party if they can't come up with a reason for the character to stick around. It cascades and it's very common in D&D. Many people in my experience don't even know they're doing it until it turns into a problem.
@mexalen: "Blocking" is exactly what that "clash of sentiments" is. It's a form of disagreement, however direct or indirect, between players. The players could have chosen to back each other's plays, creating fictional reasons why they could do so rather than say why they could not do so. (This goes for the DM too.) It's hard to imagine intraparty violence breaking out if you had all simply went along with each other's ideas. This is the solution to the underlying problem and it's also the solution to your question: "Shall I leave the party?" The answer is whatever you want it to be, but what you fear ultimately is further blocking (maybe even from yourself as you mention a lot of reasons why you shouldn't stay with the party even though ostensibly you want to keep the PC). You want to keep playing a character you've put some time and thought into and that's fair. It's better if everyone simply accept your idea that your character is staying with the party and then you guys work together to determine how that can work rather than why it can't.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Your in-game method example is actually an out-of-game discussion. Because the players have discussed and negotiated what their characters would do to resolve the situation before simply doing it. If they both agreed, then that's fine, play on.
I wonder if this is where you guys are getting confused actually.
As much as I like to rib Iserith about it, it really is a good idea overall to seek to find an alternative to PVP by out-of-game discussion. You may not find one, but at least it can be determined if all the players agree that the characters would indeed be willing to hash it out violently. Unless the party is particularly bloodthirsty, you'd think they would try to work it out without killing an old friend. If all players agree that the characters are no longer viable travelling partners, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to kill one another.
Some options you have (with DM support) are (off the top of my head): Play one of the slaves... the minotaur, maybe. Work with the DM. Maybe one of the slaves is a sorcerer/doppleganger/shapeshifter of some sort and would make a good temporary or longer term PC to join the party. Since the players are amicable, maybe you could have a two-party system. You could play your character and the other players could play a drow party intending on getting you all out of there. Just because the characters have something in common with the slave monsters doesn't mean the escaped slave monsters are allies, either. They might use the party only to turn on them once they're used up. Your character could come in and help your old allies. Irony would be if you find out that the drow that you trusted wasn't trustworthy and was in some way allied with the goblins and other escaped monsters. He might lead the party into a trap involving the escaped monsters and the rogue drow. This would give the players incentive to work with one another.
If you left off at the last battle the DM could throw in some sort of do-over mechanism. Not the most elegant solutions here, but they are options, at least: it was all a dream, hallucinatory mushroom dust must have gotten in the party's water supply, or you were all under a spell. All cheesy solutions, but desparate times call for desparate measures.
If you'd rather avoid the cheesiness of all that, you guys are 14th level... there has GOT to be some solution. Rather than have a dead party member on your hands, it wouldn't be out of the question to see if the DM will allow a minor do-over by ruling that the damage was subdual and giving the players a chance to catch their breath and role-play out a more amicable solution.
I can see many reasons why either side might be able to go along to get along. So they were slaves? In Thay, they learned it's a dog-eat-dog world. So what if they don't trust the drow companion? They don't have to turn his back on them, but they can play along until he messes up and reveals his game. In the meanwhile, let him be the guide until a change of plans can take place. Even though you trust the drow, at what point do you trust your long-term travelling companions more?
It doesn't sound like there was much trust in the party to begin with... which is strange to me, considering their character level... was this their first adventure together?
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.
But it's okay for the Defender to stab the Drow and the OP's character and only when they reacted in self defense did he call others to come beat up the two? That's not "blocking" or whatever the current phrase of the month is?
Because the "yes and..." crew always want to blame someone other then the usual cause of the problem.
Jargonizers, I believe, is the POM (phrase of the month).
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.
@crzyhawk: Maybe, if that was established. Still means blocking was going on which was the source of this issue, why intraparty violence broke out, and why the OP's character may have to leave the party if they can't come up with a reason for the character to stick around. It cascades and it's very common in D&D. Many people in my experience don't even know they're doing it until it turns into a problem.
@mexalen: "Blocking" is exactly what that "clash of sentiments" is. It's a form of disagreement, however direct or indirect, between players. The players could have chosen to back each other's plays, creating fictional reasons why they could do so rather than say why they could not do so. (This goes for the DM too.) It's hard to imagine intraparty violence breaking out if you had all simply went along with each other's ideas. This is the solution to the underlying problem and it's also the solution to your question: "Shall I leave the party?" The answer is whatever you want it to be, but what you fear ultimately is further blocking (maybe even from yourself as you mention a lot of reasons why you shouldn't stay with the party even though ostensibly you want to keep the PC). You want to keep playing a character you've put some time and thought into and that's fair. It's better if everyone simply accept your idea that your character is staying with the party and then you guys work together to determine how that can work rather than why it can't.
Disagreement is blocking?
It is indeed difficult to imagine intraparty violence breaking out when everyone in the party is in agreement.
Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.
"Why am I still here?" "Why am I travelling with these people?" "When we get back to town can we start a new campaign? This party is more dangerous to itself than a terrasque in heat" "I attack you and miss. Repeatedly". "You're terribly wounded. Sorry, I didn't pray for healing spells today. Don't die on me man, blah blah blah"."What's a potato, P-precious?"
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.
It can be and often is. Outside of another player having his character do something that contradicts existing fiction or is completely out of context, there's really no particularly good reason why the other players can't back that idea and add onto it. Often what I see is a player thinks an idea is dumb and uses the character's motivation as justification not to go along with it, shutting down and discouraging the other player. It's really the player raising the objection, not the character. In a fictional world, we can make up whatever justifications we need to have a character go along with any idea, even a dumb one. If the objecting player will simply get over himself, that is.
Of course, this breaks down if the DM has a preconceived notion as to the outcome of any given scene or a predetermined solution to a problem. If the DM is making the characters play guessing games to figure out the "correct" path to take to the victory condition, then it's a DM fail, not a player fail per se or a failure of the approach. If this is not the case and the DM is giving all ideas a fair shot, then truthfully any plan has a chance of succeeding. It's up to the dice results and context. A dumb idea that you came up with in a few seconds has just as much a chance of succeeding as a convoluted plan that took 30 minutes of pointless, frustrating blocking to devise. It calls into question why you'd really spend all that time trying to get it "right" when you could just settle on something fun, run with it, and see where it goes.
Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.
That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking, not what the character could be thinking. Interestingly, this came up for me this week in a game in which I'm a player. My character is a minion (1 hp) who is a henchman for the party, recently joined. After a couple of sessions, one of the players who is one of two players in the group that are pretty heavy with blocking demanded to know why my character (Drunk Steve) was with the party and why his character (Hank) shouldn't just kill me in light of some errors in judgment my character made. This is what I sent to him (his questions are in bold):
1. Why shouldn't Hank kill Drunk Steve? Drunk Steve’s bravery at the bridge shows he is not beyond redemption. Also, he’s Hank Lono’s fraternal twin brother, separated at birth, just as the Prophecy foretold!
2. What should Hank do? Hank should look into his heart and realize that heroes aren’t born – they’re forged in the crucible of Action and Danger. And that Drunk Steve is at the beginning of his journey, just like certain other famous adventurers once were. Also, if you don’t block #1, you should protect Drunk Steve from Carric who has a murderous look in his eye. For the Prophecy says only Hank and his twin brother Steve can defeat the black wyrm Rhashaak, Guardian of Haka’torvhak. Which is right here in Q’barra!
3. Why is Drunk Steve even around? Whatever else he may be, Drunk Steve’s a loyal henchman whose messes ultimately seem to create a net gain for the party. That must be worth something. And if you don’t block the ideas in #2, without Drunk Steve, you and your friends are destined to fall in the battle that is to come. How do I know this? Because Wildcard told me before he fell into the river and disappeared.
None of this fiction existed before I made it up on the spot in about 5 minutes. As a result of this player accepting my offers, we've now got a dramatic reveal next session that we're brothers. He's got a reason to protect me from another party member. And we've got a new adventure that the DM is working on as we speak. All it took was some collaboration and accepting ideas offered with additions. The problem was diffused right away. This is applicable to the OP's situation and will allow him to stay with the group, add to the tapestry of the fiction (possibly generating new adventures), and develop the character (and party) further.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
It can be and often is. Outside of another player having his character do something that contradicts existing fiction or is completely out of context, there's really no particularly good reason why the other players can't back that idea and add onto it. Often what I see is a player thinks an idea is dumb and uses the character's motivation as justification not to go along with it, shutting down and discouraging the other player. It's really the player raising the objection, not the character. In a fictional world, we can make up whatever justifications we need to have a character go along with any idea, even a dumb one. If the objecting player will simply get over himself, that is.
Of course, this breaks down if the DM has a preconceived notion as to the outcome of any given scene or a predetermined solution to a problem. If the DM is making the characters play guessing games to figure out the "correct" path to take to the victory condition, then it's a DM fail, not a player fail per se or a failure of the approach. If this is not the case and the DM is giving all ideas a fair shot, then truthfully any plan has a chance of succeeding. It's up to the dice results and context. A dumb idea that you came up with in a few seconds has just as much a chance of succeeding as a convoluted plan that took 30 minutes of pointless, frustrating blocking to devise. It calls into question why you'd really spend all that time trying to get it "right" when you could just settle on something fun, run with it, and see where it goes.
Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.
That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking, not what the character could be thinking. Interestingly, this came up for me this week in a game in which I'm a player. My character is a minion (1 hp) who is a henchman for the party, recently joined. After a couple of sessions, one of the players who is one of two players in the group that are pretty heavy with blocking demanded to know why my character (Drunk Steve) was with the party and why his character (Hank) shouldn't just kill me in light of some errors in judgment my character made. This is what I sent to him (his questions are in bold):
1. Why shouldn't Hank kill Drunk Steve? Drunk Steve’s bravery at the bridge shows he is not beyond redemption. Also, he’s Hank Lono’s fraternal twin brother, separated at birth, just as the Prophecy foretold!
2. What should Hank do? Hank should look into his heart and realize that heroes aren’t born – they’re forged in the crucible of Action and Danger. And that Drunk Steve is at the beginning of his journey, just like certain other famous adventurers once were. Also, if you don’t block #1, you should protect Drunk Steve from Carric who has a murderous look in his eye. For the Prophecy says only Hank and his twin brother Steve can defeat the black wyrm Rhashaak, Guardian of Haka’torvhak. Which is right here in Q’barra!
3. Why is Drunk Steve even around? Whatever else he may be, Drunk Steve’s a loyal henchman whose messes ultimately seem to create a net gain for the party. That must be worth something. And if you don’t block the ideas in #2, without Drunk Steve, you and your friends are destined to fall in the battle that is to come. How do I know this? Because Wildcard told me before he fell into the river and disappeared.
None of this fiction existed before I made it up on the spot in about 5 minutes. As a result of this player accepting my offers, we've now got a dramatic reveal next session that we're brothers. He's got a reason to protect me from another party member. And we've got a new adventure that the DM is working on as we speak. All it took was some collaboration and accepting ideas offered with additions. The problem was diffused right away. This is applicable to the OP's situation and will allow him to stay with the group, add to the tapestry of the fiction (possibly generating new adventures), and develop the character (and party) further.
Maybe the player getting 'blocked' could get over himself, instead?
After all... not allowing himself to be 'blocked' is 'blocking' the other character's actions.
You can't seem to imagine a situation where two characters simply don't get along or DO get along but have mutually exclusive goals. It happens. And your only solution is that everyone should just put up with an idiot's idiocy or change their goals, motivations and behaviors because one character will cry if he doesn't get his way?
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.
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".
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.
Maybe the player getting 'blocked' could get over himself, instead?
After all... not allowing himself to be 'blocked' is 'blocking' the other character's actions.
You can't seem to imagine a situation where two characters simply don't get along or DO get along but have mutually exclusive goals. It happens. And your only solution is that everyone should just put up with an idiot's idiocy or change their goals, motivations and behaviors because one character will cry if he doesn't get his way?
No. Blocking is the issue and where the problem originates. It's not the fault of the person being blocked. It shouldn't be happening in the first place. It's akin to an improv actor on stage saying, "Let's go hit the pool!" and the other actor saying, "No, I can't swim." That's a block. It doesn't move the scene forward and shuts down the other person's ideas. That can lead to a whole host of problems that you see on these forums.
I can most definitely imagine a situation in which two characters don't get along or have opposing goals. This happens in our games all the time. But what they do is find a way to support each other's ideas in a way that everyone gets what they want and the game moves forward. They do this by saying, "Yes, and..." and avoiding blocks. Decisions are made quickly, scenes move and change, and choices matter. There are no arguments or tension or anything that spills out-of-character to become a problem. They can do all this by staying in-character, too, staying true to their goals and motivations, adding fiction wherever necessary to make it work.
I would also note, with reference to putting up with an "idiot's idiocy" that we've discussed this before, you and I, and I'm not the one who chooses to play with immature idiots. You do, admittedly so. Perhaps that's why you feel blocking is necessary. As well, in light of other discussions I've seen you engage in recently, I'm also seeing why you think blocking in necessary: You support the notion of "illusion of choice." So, of course, blocking comes perfectly natural to you. You can't use that style without blocking - it's foundational. At least I can see why you think this now, even if I don't agree with that approach.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
