|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:54PM
#11
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 3:33PM
#12
|
|
|
I think that people sometimes forget that D&D is a social activity, and that the most important outcome is for everyone to have fun. The idea that you might leave the group and miss out on a social activity because of something that happened in game (if I'm reading your post correctly) seems extreme.
I don't think the DM necessarily needs to be involved in this discussion - you just need to sit down as players and figure out how you progress the situation in a way that you'll all enjoy.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 1:37AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
I just realized that I didn't word my post in the right way, and left some in-game dialogue out, but thanks to all for your input. What I described was just in-game. There are no player-to-player problems and everything is good natured. Of course the defender-players action put's me into a hard place, and toward a decission I don't like, but that doesn't change the way we would play in the future. The actions taken were all in-character. The defenders-character acting on his disdain for slavery. My character being angry and not stoping to attack someone that attacks him. The defender and the leader being ghenasi talked about freeing the slaves in their own language (probably acting on instinct during battle). The elfen-striker hating the drow and seeing his chance to attack the drow-companion. Me not relenting to the threat of a party-member, because I am hard to intimitade. And than the tension suddenly exploded. The drow-companion (played out by the DM) activated its cloud of darkness when being attacked by the defender, obscuring the other characters vision. (We three were standing adjacent to each other. ) My character yelling "What the #*?!%$ are you doing?" (without adding the defenders name it could mean either the companion or the defender). The defender to yell "They are attacking me. Help me." (which was true but we only did in selfdefense). Well, it was fun to play this scene  Anyway, what I was interessted in, was your opinion about my character leaving the party. Resulting in me having to create a character, and losing a character I took quite some time to develop. Or having the character stay with the group - in-game reason being, that she'd probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark alive. Staying would strain the in-party-relations longtime and definatly my concept of my character to say the least. But she'd start to hate the defender for the problems he caused her... she is someone that holds a grudge against people that hurt her 
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 5:26AM
#14
|
|
|
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.
OK, for the "yes, and..." folks, the slaves weren't playing ball. The slaves attacked on sight. So, just stop with the "oh you were blocking someone's idea" crap. The foes din't join with them against the drow companion, so the OP didn't block anything.
The defender picks the fight. Not the OP, the defender. The defender here is clearly the person in the wrong. The OP defended himself, nothing less. The defender attacked first, the defender lied about it, and the rest of the party went along. I don't see a single thing that the OP did wrong.
Even continuing to kill the goblins...guess what? If someone is shooting a crossbow at me, I will be returning fire. I will /always/ put the threat down, hard. if they aren't shooting, then there is the opportunity to negotiate. Once the enemy starts negotiating with steel, I will certainly conclude those negotiations for them. I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked. Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.
I think the DM let things get way out of control, but the OP wasn't in the wrong, the defender and the rest of the party were.
If your character survives, I'd definitely be leaving the party once you get back to the surface for role play reasons if nothing else. There's no way I could see any character I make being OK with the group turning on him. I'd never be able to trust them with my back again.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 5:36AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
Anyway, what I was interested in, was your opinion about my character leaving the party. Resulting in me having to create a character, and losing a character I took quite some time to develop. Or having the character stay with the group - in-game reason being, that she'd probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark alive. Staying would strain the in-party-relations longtime and definatly my concept of my character to say the least. But she'd start to hate the defender for the problems he caused her... she is someone that holds a grudge against people that hurt her
Depends, do you and the rest of group enjoy dealing with constant in-party tension and paranoia? If you do, by all means, stay. If you don't, then leave.
I can't decide what your character would do, since it's, well, your character. I can however advice you on what you should do to get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of your game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:06AM
#16
|
|
|
OK, for the "yes, and..." folks, the slaves weren't playing ball. The slaves attacked on sight. So, just stop with the "oh you were blocking someone's idea" crap. The foes din't join with them against the drow companion, so the OP didn't block anything.
The OP did say, "The goblin just scratch us with with their crossbows," which indicates a distinct lack of a threat from them. How hard would it have been for the OP to simply ignore them? Or just knock them out instead of kill them? Or ask for clarification from the defender on what to do? Not hard at all. It's a block.
The defender picks the fight. Not the OP, the defender. The defender here is clearly the person in the wrong. The OP defended himself, nothing less. The defender attacked first, the defender lied about it, and the rest of the party went along. I don't see a single thing that the OP did wrong.
Then it's good that I said, "This is not to say the defender player handled it well either." They're both in the wrong. The OP for blocking; the Defender for attacking.
Even continuing to kill the goblins...guess what? If someone is shooting a crossbow at me, I will be returning fire. I will /always/ put the threat down, hard. if they aren't shooting, then there is the opportunity to negotiate. Once the enemy starts negotiating with steel, I will certainly conclude those negotiations for them.
And, regardless of what you think about the benefits of not blocking a fellow player's ideas, you'd still be blocking them. That kind of play leads to certain outcomes. If the forums are to be believed, that outcome is frequently pvp or other forms of passive aggression. You can avoid those conflicts so, so easily by not blocking.
I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked. Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.
Is that an actual rule? Do you know what book and page? I thought it was always a house rule (and a good one). If it's official, that'd be sweet and I'd like to see it.
I think the DM let things get way out of control, but the OP wasn't in the wrong, the defender and the rest of the party were.
If the defender attempted to get the goblin's support and the DM didn't at least ask for a roll, then the DM was blocking, too. That'd mean the DM, OP, and defender were all in the wrong.
If your character survives, I'd definitely be leaving the party once you get back to the surface for role play reasons if nothing else. There's no way I could see any character I make being OK with the group turning on him. I'd never be able to trust them with my back again.
There's always a way. It just takes imagination and an out-of-game conversation to figure it out.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 1:49PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2009
|
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?
Spiteful Wizard and Angry So-and-So of the House of Trolls
The Silent God of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:47PM
#18
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:59PM
#19
|
|
|
I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked. Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.
Is that an actual rule? Do you know what book and page? I thought it was always a house rule (and a good one). If it's official, that'd be sweet and I'd like to see it.
Well, I could have sworn it was in the DMG or PHB, but I'll be buggered if I can find it. I'll mark that one up to talking out my behind, because I can't find it now.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 9:53PM
#20
|
|
|
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?
You must have missed the part where I mentioned that the defender was in the wrong, too. Twice.
Because the "yes and..." crew always want to blame someone other then the usual cause of the problem.
There is no singular cause of this problem. The OP blocked. The defender responded with an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem. Both are wrong. Possibly even the DM if he didn't allow a check to discern the goblins' participation. Case closed.
Well, I could have sworn it was in the DMG or PHB, but I'll be buggered if I can find it. I'll mark that one up to talking out my behind, because I can't find it now.
It's a good rule, official or no.
|
|
|
