PDA

View Full Version : Character Suicide



ewoods
2015-02-26, 06:31 PM
I was hoping to get some DM perspectives on an issue. Have you ever had a player who throws his character into unwinnable situations because "that's what his character would do?" I've got a player like that right now and it's driving me crazy. As an example, at the last game, the party barely managed to escape a combat between a group of dragons fighting each other. They weren't even participants in the combat, just bystanders. The risk was getting trampled or caught in the blast area of a breath weapon. So they escape to the safety of the forest and the paladin decides that he's going to go back to help defend the gold dragon (who is also a paladin) because "that's what his character would do."

Now I'm fully prepared to just squash his character and have him sit out until the party can find a resurrection, but there's got to be a more constructive way to deal with this, right? I mean, I flat-out told him that his character would most likely die if he went back, at the risk of making him feel railroaded, and he said he wanted to go back anyway. And this isn't the first time he's rushed into situations like this, nor is it the first time his character has died because of it. And maybe it's fun for him, but it's not fun for me. There's supposed to be an element of self-preservation, right? To which he responds, "My paladin is immune to fear, so he wouldn't be afraid to die."

Mr Beer
2015-02-26, 06:35 PM
Maybe it's how he likes to play, is that a big problem for the game? Some campaigns it would be, others not so much. If it's messing things up, you're going to have to talk to him about it, I mean he's entitled to get his character killed but if you are building everyone into a plot and he's messing it up, it's a problem. Either he needs to build a less suicidal character or you need to invest a lot less time on him.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-26, 06:37 PM
Hahaha! I've never played a pali who lived to level 6. Because I play my palis like that guy.

I question the mentality of DM investing in characters or attempting to shield them from death. Actions have consequences. I'm always amazed how often causality is thrown out the window for people's "feeling".

That being said, give that man a level. If he makes the choice knowing he might die, he doing an amazing thing called roleplaying.

ewoods
2015-02-26, 06:41 PM
Yeah, I guess I should have explained the root problem. See, nobody else in the party ever goes along with him. So basically the next game is going to start with the rest of the party hiding in the forest while I spend time going through the motions of the paladin's death. Meanwhile, the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting to get on with the adventure.

LooseCannoneer
2015-02-26, 06:43 PM
The Immune to Fear argument is monumentally stupid. Being afraid to die is not a status effect, it is roleplaying.

There are four types of lethality in games:
1) Everyone lives, all the time.
2) Not doing dumb things will keep you alive.
3) Bad rolls can, on occasion, kill.
4) Bring a dozen spare characters.

I recommend you run your game at 2 or 3. This means that if the Paladin wants do be suicidal, kill him.

By the way, and I don't mean to turn this into a Paladin thread, but this is my second-least favorite Paladin roleplaying style, because it plays a constant game of chicken with the DM, and they won't turn away.

Valameer
2015-02-26, 06:44 PM
I don't know what your plans were for that dragon fight, but I think it would be awesome if the gold dragon lost the fight because duty forced him to save the weaker paladin. Essentially, the paladin hampers the gold dragon's ability to fight because he is just a liability in the battle. But the gold dragon, being a paladin, must risk his life to save the paladin.

Have the gold dragon chidingly give the paladin words of wisdom along the lines of "you must choose your battles with more wisdom, oh foolish young one..." as he lays dying, if you can work it in.

ewoods
2015-02-26, 06:47 PM
Haha! That's brilliant! I might just do that.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-26, 06:48 PM
By the way, and I don't mean to turn this into a Paladin thread, but this is my second-least favorite Paladin roleplaying style, because it plays a constant game of chicken with the DM, and they won't turn away. Suidical bravery is roleplaying too. Mechanically back by fear immunity.

This is only a problem if the DM is a chicken. If you're not a pussyfooted DM, this is no issue. You kill the character, and the story goes down in infamy.

Nalak
2015-02-26, 06:55 PM
Ask if he thinks his character would do any good in the situation. I mean take the dragon fight. Is he capable of intervening in the fight in any meaningful way at all beyond becoming a potential casualty that the paladin dragon would have to protect? In my games I also rule that the fear immunity doesn't mean they can't feel fear just that it doesn't affect them. Meaning you would be afraid to die, just that fear would not hinder you in your attempts to do what was probably going to kill you. Though that's just my houserule.

There isn't anything technically wrong with a player being willing for their character to die in a noble sacrifice or in a fight they can't win. The issue is there's a large difference between holding the line and trying to buy the rest of the party time to escape the orc hordes, and getting involved in a fight so far out of your league that you'll more than likely cause more damage for the person you're trying to help than actually helping them. You'll probably need to talk to the player and see what the character is like, as they might be operating under a misconception of how paladins work. Since a paladin's job is more to do good and defy evil. You're supposed to avoid dying if you can help it since being a corpse limits the amount of good you can do.

LooseCannoneer
2015-02-26, 06:56 PM
Suidical bravery is roleplaying too. Mechanically back by fear immunity.

This is only a problem if the DM is a chicken. If you're not a pussyfooted DM, this is no issue. You kill the character, and the story goes down in infamy.

I know suicidal roleplaying is still roleplaying, I've just had players who came from DMs who don't kill PCs, so they go into stupid fights and whine incessantly when they die. Rather messy business OOC, so I recommend you think about whether the player would mnow you aren't a Bond villain simulator, where the PC is captured and placed in a slow deathtrap. Unless you have the players be too late. Then it gets fun.

MrNobody
2015-02-26, 06:56 PM
Knowing the level of the paladin could be useful: a 5th level paladin interferring between two dragons is not the same as 15th level or more...
Anyway, if you don't won't him to be squashed right out you could treat him like what it is: a distraction. Maybe the evil dragon has a ready quickened summon monster of the appropriate level (or has a magic item that allows him to quicken it) to call something that deals with the paladin as the big fight goes on.
If you are playing 3.5 remember "animate breath" spell that change the breath spell of a dragon into a construct that fights for him.
If, like i imagine, the difference of power between the paladin and the dragon is so evident it could happen something like this: the paladin attack the dragon, that barely notices but its annoyed; in its round, the dragon quick summons some back-up to deal with the "flea" and then goes back to the big fight.
Result? the paladin can be happy and deal with the forces of evil on the battlefield without being wiped out with a breath. A Reflex save every round to avoid the casual damage of a swinging tail could be useful to set the mood of the battle.

In general, i've seen a lot of "suicide characters" (did a couple myself) and in general they are like this because they strongly want to have their character to do what they think it's right for him. Best thing to me is trying to satisfy themif it possible, sometime misleading them into a safer situation (like the above suggestion), sometimes railroading them away, sometimes having them die.
I usually use reason like this. The action is well motivated in character ? Yes, let it do it. No, but anyway interesting? mislead to a safer path. No, and its a waste of time? railroad it away. No, and its utterly stupid (i am a 1st level rogue and i want to steal the king's crown from its head during a meeting with him and all his high level knight just because i'm CM rogue)? the character dies.

Donnadogsoth
2015-02-26, 06:59 PM
I thought this was going to be a thread about the game mechanics of suicide. I had a suicidal PC once, trapped in a garage with an evil truck trying to carbon monoxide poison him. He gave up and sprayed the fuel tank with his AK-47. I had the GURPS Vehicles book that told me how to roll to see whether diesel ignites, so the first shot failed, the subsequent burst didn't. End of character.

I made two mistakes there. First, diesel doesn't ignite like that; I can take the word of at least two people on that, one with mechanics expertise. Second the PC should have to make a roll, above his Motivation, to give up on life, and another roll, equal or less than his Will, to muster the courage to do the deed. If either roll fails, he doesn't have it in him.

In the paladin's case, well, the motivation is taken care of. He would roll his Motivation (or equivalent) to be motivated enough to be so reckless. Then comes the Will check, which in D&D is something like Wisdom? Both of these stats could be considered pure player choice, and that's cool if you want to run it that way, but in my game I would make him make a roll for courage.

ewoods
2015-02-26, 07:01 PM
I thought this was going to be a thread about the game mechanics of suicide.

Sorry! It wasn't supposed to be click-bait!

Sith_Happens
2015-02-26, 07:06 PM
I don't know what your plans were for that dragon fight, but I think it would be awesome if the gold dragon lost the fight because duty forced him to save the weaker paladin. Essentially, the paladin hampers the gold dragon's ability to fight because he is just a liability in the battle. But the gold dragon, being a paladin, must risk his life to save the paladin.

Have the gold dragon chidingly give the paladin words of wisdom along the lines of "you must choose your battles with more wisdom, oh foolish young one..." as he lays dying, if you can work it in.

Oh man, so much this. You need to beat into his head that these sorts of actions don't actually do anyone any good, and therefore the only reason "his character would do them" is if "his character" is stupid.

Thrudd
2015-02-26, 07:16 PM
Play out the combat and let the dice fall where they may. He shouldn't be restricted in his character's actions or motives. If he dies, he dies. Maybe he'll do something smart or get lucky and survives and helps the good guy win. Who knows? If the rest of the party is unable or unwilling to recover his body due to fear of the dragons, massive damage, or getting eaten whole, well, that's the risk he took knowingly.

Why should you be concerned that the character dies, if the player isn't? Maybe his next character will be more pragmatic.

Mr.Moron
2015-02-26, 07:21 PM
I'd make the Dragon vs Dragon fight as a background effect. The baddies have some kind of agent, or magical artifact or other secondary element set up to intervene on the battle on their behalf in some kind of sneaky way that wasn't apparent before this point. Something vulnerable enough in it's current state to be dealt with by a PC, but a credible enough to be a threat.

For example, this is one thing I might try (just an example):

Turns out one of the evil dragons has some kind of magic artifact that enhances his magic and can be used to shoot super-death-lasers. He's charging it for the super deadly blast when the good dragon/paladin is able to separate it from him (knock it to the ground). However the process has started and beam-o-doom is still chargin', and the paladin-dragon is too occupied to deal with it directly but it'll still be bad news for him if it goes off.

Now that dragons are fully engaged and "off-screen" with their mid-air battle. Stray breath weapons and tail swipes can be glancing enough to be level appropriate checks, maybe slightly on the easy end. Rather than direct death sentences.

So the paladin arrives and the magic item automatically summons some minor demons to protect itself. If the paladin destroys the artifact he's contributed in a way that's satisfying to his player, without making the dragons seem like chumps, while keeping the challenge the level appropriate. If fails, he's failed in a fair challenge and not died to "dragons, fall you die".

I think if there is any way to do something like that within the tone of your game, it'll be more satisfying for everyone involved.

ewoods
2015-02-26, 07:27 PM
Yeah, I never had any intention of railroading his character. I did give him fair warning, but if he wants to rush headlong into battle, I'm fully prepared to let him and see what happens. I think what bothers me the most is that whenever he does this, the rest of the party just has to sit there and wait. They never complain but I don't take it as a good sign when I'm spending game time on a single player while all the other players are on their phones or pull out their laptops to find something to do.

Thrudd
2015-02-26, 07:41 PM
Yeah, I never had any intention of railroading his character. I did give him fair warning, but if he wants to rush headlong into battle, I'm fully prepared to let him and see what happens. I think what bothers me the most is that whenever he does this, the rest of the party just has to sit there and wait. They never complain but I don't take it as a good sign when I'm spending game time on a single player while all the other players are on their phones or pull out their laptops to find something to do.

Yeah that is annoying. Maybe after or before the game, you should suggest he alter his character's behavior a little to avoid splitting the party quite so often. Or talk with the whole group and see if they want to come up with characters that all have more similar priorities, so this doesn't come up as much. Or if they don't mind at all, then let it go, I guess. Just talk about your concerns with all of them.

Nalak
2015-02-26, 07:46 PM
Yeah, I never had any intention of railroading his character. I did give him fair warning, but if he wants to rush headlong into battle, I'm fully prepared to let him and see what happens. I think what bothers me the most is that whenever he does this, the rest of the party just has to sit there and wait. They never complain but I don't take it as a good sign when I'm spending game time on a single player while all the other players are on their phones or pull out their laptops to find something to do.

You know something else you could do. You said the next session is going to start with him doing his thing and the rest of the party hiding in the woods right? Start with the party. Its gonna take a bit before the paladin is able to get into combat range with the dragons anyway and if the dragons are you know being dragons and flying then that's even more time before he can do anything. So start with the party. They're fleeing through the woods to get away from an evil dragon and a draconic paladin doing battle and they've lost a decent chunk of party muscle and healing because the paladin has a death wish. While they're in the woods the party are still in danger have them get into fights with dark cultists or something, you know scavenger evil doers, trying to get into opportune positions to harvest the loot of the dragon horde nearby and/or kill the winning dragon since it will be weaker. Hell have them fight random beasts that are basically trying to escape the area because there are two adult dragons fighting and every animal in a several mile radius has its instincts screaming to run. I'm not saying kill the party, but I'm saying start with them and their trials and their problems as they run. Then when you reach a part like "At last you reach the relative safety of the road." Switch back to the paladin who's greatest contribution to the fight will be getting ignored by the enemy how is several leagues above him or getting the person he wants to save killed.

Frozen_Feet
2015-02-26, 07:54 PM
I admit, this thread's not what about I thought it was. I add my voice to the choir supporting Obi Wan Dragon dying to save the paladin. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, if this was me running the game, I'd just let the character die fighting. Trying to save a fellow paladin is hardly the worst way to go in my games.

On a rather different note, this scenario brought into mind the story of one cleric in my past group. His character spilled the beans on a huge treasure to the wrong person in addition to being tethered to following their command. After an expedition that took a wrong turn, the character was mutilated, penniless and hugely in debt. In order to escape the situation and to prevent his friends from getting settled with the debt, he had himself rowed to a nearby island where they knew a young blue dragon lived. Since it was not home, he tidied up its nest, made a bed for it and even brought it roses.

Obviously, the dragon torched him when it got back, and no-one seriously thought there'd be a different outcome. But the event became really brilliant in retrospect when I realize the player accidentally and without prodding roleplayed spiralling into depression and insanity, in addition to creating the sole instance in any game I've been part of where a character has committed suicide to escape his debts.

jaydubs
2015-02-26, 08:47 PM
DM says no because "that's not what's supposed to happen, you're ruining my story" is railroading.

DM says no because those actions will cause metagame issues like splitting the party, and making the other players wait, is perfectly acceptable behavior. It's in the same vein as talking things out with a PC when you might just attack that character if it were an NPC. The players and DM bend a little bit for the sake of everyone having a more enjoyable session.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is an out-of-character issue because it's causing an out-of-character problem (other players having to sit and wait). And as always, you're better off dealing with out-of-character problems, out-of-character. Just tell him that you don't want to make everyone else wait. He needs to either rationalize a reason why his character doesn't need to go off on his own. Or if he can't justify that in his head, any future characters have to built with a more flexible personality.

Basically, treat it exactly like someone who likes to play nutbags crazy chaotic neutral characters. You can either figure out a way to play it without causing problems, or you can't play that alignment anymore.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-26, 09:06 PM
I was hoping to get some DM perspectives on an issue. Have you ever had a player who throws his character into unwinnable situations because "that's what his character would do?"

Sure, this sort of thing happens in general all the time. But if your DM, you just need to remember that you control everything in the game.

Say you don't want the character to go back to the dragon fight, you can just say ''both dragons fly up into the air, and out of sight, to continue the fight high in the clouds.'' or even ''with a roar, evil dragon kills good dragon, fight over..''

Or ''the dragon looks at you and sneezes....it has the effect of a web spell''

As DM, you can do anything to change the situation.

endur
2015-02-26, 10:29 PM
Lots of characters will do stuff that is not realistic from time to time.

Example: My dwarf in full plate armor jumped down over 10 feet to fight some goblins. In real life, a 10' drop in full plate armor could be suicide to the person jumping. In a game, no problem.

Several ways to handle the character running back to join the dragon fight.

1. Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader on the Death Star: Character runs back in time to see the Gold Dragon die. Character witnesses Gold Dragon telling Darth Vader, you cannot win.

2. Character encounters evil dragon minions, and fights minions while main event goes on.

3. Character attacks evil main dragon, with or without consequences. i.e. evil main dragon can ignore minion paladin, or evil main dragon could focus fire minion paladin.

4. Dragons have already flown off in their duel, so the fight has moved elsewhere by the time the paladin gets back.

Many other possibilities.

NOW THE REAL PROBLEM IS NONE OF THE ABOVE. Your real issue is that the player wants to go on quests that the other players do not want to go on. You as GM do not want to have one player monopolize the spotlight while the rest sit and do nothing.

So if the Paladin is going on a side quest, whether it is this one, or finding his special mount, or doing any other personal side quest, I highly recommend resolving the side quest not during group time. i.e. Resolve it by phone, email, or sometime when the two of you are together and the rest of the group isn't waiting. That way the paladin can accomplish his goals, but you are not interfering with other people's goals.

And this goes for all characters that have side quests, not just paladins.

Deophaun
2015-02-27, 12:25 AM
Coincidentally, the issue I've had with PC pig-headedness also involved a paladin and a dragon. The paladin in question was part of an order that slew evil dragons. So, if there was a dragon around, the paladin would rush head-first in to try to kill it, generally getting knocked into the negatives real quick while the rest of the party scrambled to keep him alive for some reason. It didn't help that the paladin had zero ranks in Knowledge (arcana), and roleplayed that has having absolutely no idea what any dragon could ever do or why they were so dangerous. At one point, the cleric healed him into the positives in the middle of battle and, just as he was about to rush in again, my paladin knocked him unconscious.

Of course, in that campaign, my paladin also did things that were not conducive to his own survival, but almost always in service to preventing the deaths of other party members. In another incident, involving a dragon construct of all things, where yes, the other paladin had been struck dead and we later had to burn a wish to bring him back, my paladin did everything he could to occupy the thing's attention while the others evacuated the cavern. Finally, with about a third of my health remaining, everyone had gotten to safety and my paladin could finally start to retreat...

...then they decided to come back in.

And that was the second wish we burned that day. That ring didn't have a long lifespan.

Yukitsu
2015-02-27, 12:42 AM
I was hoping to get some DM perspectives on an issue. Have you ever had a player who throws his character into unwinnable situations because "that's what his character would do?"

I think from a DM perspective, I would have to ask why that situation is there in the first place. Is it there to add something to the setting, but which is somehow inconsequential to the story or characters? If it is, say it happened, but the characters didn't witness it. In this case, the encounter, assuming it's D&D isn't terribly engaging, it would simply be rolling reflex saves over and over. Encounters that are "unwinnable" are by their very nature not terribly interesting except potentially as a narrative device, but they're only a narrative device, they aren't people playing a game anymore. Consider shuffling it into story telling, but don't make it something the players can actively engage in, because yeah maybe a big dragon fight would be interesting, but actually fighting in one would be even more interesting.

Is it truly something that is unwinnable? I've thrown myself at dozens of things that my DM has stated outright I wouldn't be able to beat and came out ahead, and each time he says the warning to another player, he does in fact kill that character. In this case, the encounters are difficult and require lateral thinking, they are not in fact unwinnable. A game should have situations where the player could feasibly pull off something that either succeeds or contributes, but contriving it until they can't is simply railroading.

If it isn't actually designed to explicitly be unwinnable, let him run in there. Maybe you'll be surprised by something they think of or pull off, and if it does turn out that there's nothing they could do there then that's how things are.

Ultimately though, people who are on the player side of things want to interact with the most interesting parts of a campaign world. If someone is interested in throwing themselves into terrible danger, they will.

So personally as a DM, I'd put the error on myself here, I shouldn't be placing truly impossible situations into the game world, and I should be placing set pieces out of reach of the player's ability to interact with them if I don't want them touched. "You can't change it it already happened" is a fairly non-railroad way to communicate story elements such as a massive dragon war.

Nalak
2015-02-27, 01:22 AM
I think from a DM perspective, I would have to ask why that situation is there in the first place. Is it there to add something to the setting, but which is somehow inconsequential to the story or characters? If it is, say it happened, but the characters didn't witness it. In this case, the encounter, assuming it's D&D isn't terribly engaging, it would simply be rolling reflex saves over and over. Encounters that are "unwinnable" are by their very nature not terribly interesting except potentially as a narrative device, but they're only a narrative device, they aren't people playing a game anymore. Consider shuffling it into story telling, but don't make it something the players can actively engage in, because yeah maybe a big dragon fight would be interesting, but actually fighting in one would be even more interesting.

Is it truly something that is unwinnable? I've thrown myself at dozens of things that my DM has stated outright I wouldn't be able to beat and came out ahead, and each time he says the warning to another player, he does in fact kill that character. In this case, the encounters are difficult and require lateral thinking, they are not in fact unwinnable. A game should have situations where the player could feasibly pull off something that either succeeds or contributes, but contriving it until they can't is simply railroading.

If it isn't actually designed to explicitly be unwinnable, let him run in there. Maybe you'll be surprised by something they think of or pull off, and if it does turn out that there's nothing they could do there then that's how things are.

Ultimately though, people who are on the player side of things want to interact with the most interesting parts of a campaign world. If someone is interested in throwing themselves into terrible danger, they will.

So personally as a DM, I'd put the error on myself here, I shouldn't be placing truly impossible situations into the game world, and I should be placing set pieces out of reach of the player's ability to interact with them if I don't want them touched. "You can't change it it already happened" is a fairly non-railroad way to communicate story elements such as a massive dragon war.
To be fair Yukitsu it doesn't seem like the problem is "This player keeps throwing himself at situations I say aren't winnable," and more "This guy will abandon the party to go off on his own thing, usually because he's decided to go after the fight that everyone decided they couldn't win. As a result I have to derail the session for a while to show what he's doing while everyone else has to sit on their hands because no one else was up for committing suicide."

Though if I can cast some cynicism on the situation. We're sure the guy is actually at least trying to rp and this isn't just him trying to hog spotlight by throwing his character at situations where he knows he'll be the only one present, right?

Yukitsu
2015-02-27, 01:44 AM
To be fair Yukitsu it doesn't seem like the problem is "This player keeps throwing himself at situations I say aren't winnable," and more "This guy will abandon the party to go off on his own thing, usually because he's decided to go after the fight that everyone decided they couldn't win. As a result I have to derail the session for a while to show what he's doing while everyone else has to sit on their hands because no one else was up for committing suicide."

Though if I can cast some cynicism on the situation. We're sure the guy is actually at least trying to rp and this isn't just him trying to hog spotlight by throwing his character at situations where he knows he'll be the only one present, right?

While I can understand that that sort of player can be problematic, ultimately, you're trying, I would hope, as a DM to produce interesting scenes and scenarios. It's easy to fall into the trap of trying to tell a story or express a world, but a pretty fundamental part of RP games is getting involved in there, and being in those situations, not just listening to the DM talking about them. Obviously there is some miscommunication about expectations going on at the table, but ultimately, you need to back up a little and ask yourself why those dragons were there in the first place, and why wouldn't the players want to be a part of that if you've made it interesting? A lot of these decisions can be traced to the DM planning out something with an expectation, but the players will almost never follow what you are expecting them to.

In other words, I'd step back a bit and instead of asking about the player's motivations, I'd go into my own first. I think good DMing is about asking what you can do to improve the campaign first, not what actions need to be taken away from players. If it turns out that you did actually have a well thought out reason for those dragons to be there, you have given the player plenty of in game reasons to not do what they are doing and you've not just put in an impossible battle because you thought it would impress your players, then you should move on to thinking about what the players could do differently.

If you really must do all that, as a player, I'd prefer if my DM simply and flatly said "OK, you do that and your character gets killed, roll up a new character." It saves time on an endeavor that he clearly has no intent of letting me succeed in, dice and rules stop being fundamentally necessary to the situation.

goto124
2015-02-27, 01:50 AM
The DM had the dragons very difficult to fight in combat, but the PCs could've negotiated or used Diplomancy on them. The dragons were there not for combat, but for a social situation.

I was about to say 'what to do if the players insist on combat', but then I thought of 'have the dragons throw them out of the cave without killing them'. Not sure if it's the best way.

The whole 'no plot survives contact with the players' thing is one of the more frustrating parts of DMing.

Does a 'when the DM asks you 'are you sure' and you answer yes, rocks fall and everyone dies' policy work for situations such as this, or does it only lead to railroading?

Tengu_temp
2015-02-27, 01:55 AM
There are games where a PC jumping into a suicidal situation would miraculously survive or even win, and there are games where the PC would die quickly. You need to make it clear to this player that yours is the second kind of game. After that, he has only himself to blame for his suicidal actions.

And immunity to fear doesn't kill your self-preservation instinct and common sense. It's called Aura of Courage, not Aura of Stupidity.

Yukitsu
2015-02-27, 02:19 AM
There are games where a PC jumping into a suicidal situation would miraculously survive or even win, and there are games where the PC would die quickly. You need to make it clear to this player that yours is the second kind of game. After that, he has only himself to blame for his suicidal actions.

And immunity to fear doesn't kill your self-preservation instinct and common sense. It's called Aura of Courage, not Aura of Stupidity.

Depending on how it happens, the DM has no control over whether or not it's the former or latter type of game. I get into a tremendous number of situations as a player that the DM has claimed was suicidal, and I've gotten through pretty much all of those. Yeah sure, I'll run if I don't have the exact tools and prep time to successfully defeat an encounter such as that, but if I see an opening and take it and surprise the DM, it becomes the former type of game where the DM may have considered it to be the latter. The only time I would fail is if the DM outright told me that I couldn't for narrative purposes, and that would straight and simple be the worst and most egregious type of railroading.

goto124
2015-02-27, 02:25 AM
CR: 9x10^30

*wonders*

BWR
2015-02-27, 03:22 AM
DM says no because "that's not what's supposed to happen, you're ruining my story" is railroading.

DM says no because those actions will cause metagame issues like splitting the party, and making the other players wait, is perfectly acceptable behavior. It's in the same vein as talking things out with a PC when you might just attack that character if it were an NPC. The players and DM bend a little bit for the sake of everyone having a more enjoyable session.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is an out-of-character issue because it's causing an out-of-character problem (other players having to sit and wait). And as always, you're better off dealing with out-of-character problems, out-of-character. Just tell him that you don't want to make everyone else wait. He needs to either rationalize a reason why his character doesn't need to go off on his own. Or if he can't justify that in his head, any future characters have to built with a more flexible personality.

Seconding this. OOC problems (which is what this is) need to be handled OOC. While there is nothing inherently wrong with playing the character this way, if it causes problems at the table, it must be dealt with. Explain that it isn't very fun for you or the other players to have to always bail his PC out every time he does something stupid. Most people will alter their behavior once they realize it's bothering other people. If he pulls the "I'm just roleplaying my character" line, explain gently but not condescendingly that roleplaying is all well and good but using it as an excuse to do stuff that ruins the fun for everyone else is just kind of rude - better to change your character than make too much trouble for everyone. If that doesn't work, let those actions have consequences.

oshi
2015-02-27, 05:31 AM
...Encounters that are "unwinnable" are by their very nature not terribly interesting except potentially as a narrative device, but they're only a narrative device, they aren't people playing a game anymore...

Why can narratives only be about defeating things through might of arms and magic? And why can you not have a game in situations that don't have combat?
Unwinnable encounters can exist for at least three reasons that I can think of off the top of my head, and in each of the situations they should be telegraphed as unwinnable. For example by having the situation being flocks of dragons fighting each other. Anyway: Getting characters to run from a situation, getting characters to negotiate their way through something (Personally I'd prefer this be a winnable encounter so they can resort to violence if it comes to that, but maybe the negotiation is about preventing a war instead of just about getting past some goblins, and the combat would be too large for the characters to make a difference in), or reinforcing the nature of the world (One of the characters walks up to the BBEG's castle and calls him out or something similar).
I don't see any reason the the first two options can't make a good story, and there's definitely rolls to be made if that's important to you.

prufock
2015-02-27, 08:12 AM
Ice him. There is nothing wrong with killing a character that willingly jumps into situations that are obviously too much for him to handle.

That said, why are you making your PCs spectators? Even if they can't do anything about the dragon fight, there should be something for PCs to do. Help villagers escape, stop the flood that the dragons create when they crash through a dam, deal with the evil dragon's entourage who are harrying the gold dragon, or whatever. It's no wonder you have a PC who wants to get involved if they're being treated as spectators.

Failing all else, though, if the paladin wants to try it, let him get one lucky hit that does minimal damage but distracts the evil dragon for a moment. He gets brutally eviscerated, but his sacrifice allows the gold dragon to win, or escape.

Yukitsu
2015-02-27, 12:47 PM
Why can narratives only be about defeating things through might of arms and magic? And why can you not have a game in situations that don't have combat?
Unwinnable encounters can exist for at least three reasons that I can think of off the top of my head, and in each of the situations they should be telegraphed as unwinnable. For example by having the situation being flocks of dragons fighting each other. Anyway: Getting characters to run from a situation, getting characters to negotiate their way through something (Personally I'd prefer this be a winnable encounter so they can resort to violence if it comes to that, but maybe the negotiation is about preventing a war instead of just about getting past some goblins, and the combat would be too large for the characters to make a difference in), or reinforcing the nature of the world (One of the characters walks up to the BBEG's castle and calls him out or something similar).
I don't see any reason the the first two options can't make a good story, and there's definitely rolls to be made if that's important to you.

I didn't say that it had to lead to combat, winning any given encounter is simply achieving goals.

That aside, while I do care somewhat as a DM to create good bits of story, I don't care at all if the DM has an interesting story laid out for me. What matters is that he has put in an interesting and enjoyable game where a story can emerge from the DM interacting with the players. That's the problem I have here, taking out any of those negotiation things, as those are winnable encounters, those dragons to me, if they have a big "don't touch" sign over them are the paramount of dull, it's just the DM talking at me about things which no longer matter since I don't make any decisions regarding them.

Trevortni
2015-02-27, 01:48 PM
Yeah, I guess I should have explained the root problem. See, nobody else in the party ever goes along with him. So basically the next game is going to start with the rest of the party hiding in the forest while I spend time going through the motions of the paladin's death. Meanwhile, the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting to get on with the adventure.

While I would heartily endorse the Death of Obi Wan Dragon approach, since this seems to be a recurring pattern with this player, it would probably be a good idea to let him do his insane heroics without affecting the group's spotlight. With that in mind, I see basically two options, depending on how much time you as the DM want to spend on it.

If you have ample free time between sessions, go ahead and run this encounter with him one-on-one, then you're good to go when you get back to your regularly scheduled session. If you want to make it less emotionally rewarding for the player, you might insist that this be over text message or something, so that he doesn't get the whole experience. Try to act like you're distracted by other things going on.

But it sounds like you're getting burned out by his foolish heroics, so you might opt for the second option:

Abstract the battle. Don't let him get to choose round-by-round what happens. Whatever choices he was going to make probably aren't going to make much difference anyway, unless he can describe an unexpected tacitcal approach, in which case you can modify the survival criteria. You can do one roll, or maybe 5 or 6 rolls with the dragon's modifiers, let's call them 4 physical attacks and 2 breath attacks. If he manages to avoid half of them, or maybe all but one or two of them, he survives the battle. If not, then he gets to start making his new character, or wait for a resurrection, or whatever. The battle is over in a minute, and the rest of the PCs can pick up doing whatever they were going to do.

When all the player's suicide attempts are abstracted and he doesn't really get to do much in them, it might dull the luster of making them in the first place. Just five or six rolls and it's done is not as glorious as getting to describe how horribly and heroically he gets slaughtered.

Almarck
2015-02-27, 01:59 PM
I did stupid things like that before just because I felt like I was getting sidelined.

Anyways I third the recommendation to allow the other part of the group to do something or abstract the dragon fight. It's bad enough if the dm is focusing on other characters very strongly, it's a whole lot worse when a single character is taking up the whole spot light.

AdmiralCheez
2015-02-27, 03:22 PM
For another approach, if his justification for suicidal heroic stands is "that's what my character would do," then you should ask the rest of the party how they feel about traveling with a man that leaves them constantly to fight alone against the odds. What would their characters do? Just let him go out there alone? Would they not try to save his life by stopping him? If they can convince him that throwing away his life on a hopeless battle only hurts the rest of the world, since he's no longer there to fight evil, then that's even better. Plus, if he's actually serious about roleplaying, and not just using that as an excuse to fight everything, then it would be an important character moment for the party, bringing them closer together as a team.


If, however, he disregards the advice of the GM and the rest of the party at that point, and stoically draws his sword to aid the dragon paladin in a heroic last stand, then absolutely give him that death. Maybe his next character won't be so stubbornly heroic.

Talakeal
2015-02-27, 03:53 PM
How about actually playing it straight?

Let the characters make their own choices, and then roll out the combat. The paladin may well die, but he might survive. Likewise, if the dragons are roughly evenly matched, there is a decent chance the paladin will actually alter the outcome of the fight.

This is the easiest way to handle it, and it actually allows the characters to think for themselves and make informed decisions.


Now, this is only a short term solution. If the characters simply don't have enough shared motivation to stick together the party needs to split up and people need to reroll more compatible characters; if that doesn't interest them then the gaming group needs to split up and find tables with more like minded players.

gom jabbarwocky
2015-02-27, 05:14 PM
Huh, I'm disappointed this thread isn't about PCs actually committing suicide. There have been a few Call of Cthulhu games and the like where certain PCs had the desire to end their own life for whatever reason. You know, because they possess Knowledge Man Was Not Meant to Know or the like. I rule that sane characters (PC and NPCs alike) can't commit suicide unless they roll something to show they have the nerve to follow through - usually the DC or the like is very high. The desire to live is a powerful instinct, and for the sake of taste I never take suicide lightly.

That's "my PC puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger" suicide suicide, though. A player being obstinately stupid about their character, despite repeated warnings? Kill them, quickly, and with little fanfare. Especially a Paladin who should know better than to throw their life away in a battle they know they can't win, for stakes that are so low. That's not martyrdom, because a martyr actually accomplishes something with their sacrifice. If they get that, maybe they'll roll up a new character with some actual sense next time. If not, they'll just roll up another character with full HP and no sense of self-preservation. I've dealt with players who think of their PC as bullets with which to fire at the campaign, and there are other ways to deal with that, but that's a separate issue, I think.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-27, 07:05 PM
Now I'm fully prepared to just squash his character and have him sit out until the party can find a resurrection, but there's got to be a more constructive way to deal with this, right? A few, yes.

Raise Dead. This is basically what it's for.

Have this player, and anyone else whose character might die, generate some back-up characters, complete with reasons how and why they could quickly rejoin the group. Sitting out of the game is not really a fair consequence for any legal player choice.

Find other ways for characters to fail besides death. Being trampled or blasted are fare consequences to getting too close to a dragon fight, but not the only ones. Roll checks to see if the character gets knocked aside by a flailing dragon limb. These aren't all that damaging, but they put him in a precarious position, such as dangling over a pit, or trapped by boulders. He can get out of the situation, even without help, but not before the opportunity to jump into danger has passed.

Remember that you are the one setting up these suicidal situations. Avoid doing that, or do it in such a way that there are non-lethal consequences for getting in over his head, and the problem largely goes away.

Finally, if you don't like these ideas, and find the player's choices disruptive, talk to him. Explain your concerns, and maybe ask him to make a new character who won't rush into situations like that.

Mr Beer
2015-02-27, 07:10 PM
I think what bothers me the most is that whenever he does this, the rest of the party just has to sit there and wait. They never complain but I don't take it as a good sign when I'm spending game time on a single player while all the other players are on their phones or pull out their laptops to find something to do.

Then fix that problem, because it's a legitimate one.. When he suicides, your priority is everyone else's experience, not his. He loses his character, you play on. He gets a new character next game, which gets sorted out between games, not on the group's time.

I suggest having an NPC or generic PC in the wings if it's the start of a game, so he doesn't have to sit there for 6 hours twiddling his thumbs. But the process of getting that person to the party make take a while. It happens at the game's convenience, not his.

Toilet Cobra
2015-02-27, 07:15 PM
...while I spend time going through the motions of the paladin's death. Meanwhile, the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting to get on with the adventure.

One option is to do this thing during the off-time between games. Often if one of my players goes off on his own for a brief side thing, we'll resolve it over email or in a one-on-one session.

I think since your paladin has no real chance to help, you shouldn't even run a combat for him. Have him make reflex saves to avoid being hit by lashing tails, flying trees, and stray bursts of breath weapon. Have him make fort saves to avoid being deafened by titanic roars. If that doesn't discourage him, you can either kill him outright or have a more dramatic story ending (I like, the evil dragon was almost defeated, but used the paladin as a distraction-- maybe grabs him with his tail and hurls him through the air, the good dragon catches him, and while he's doing so, the evil dragon flies away). Either way the whole thing will take thirty minutes, and he'll know whether or not to bring a new character sheet to the next session.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-28, 08:48 AM
And immunity to fear doesn't kill your self-preservation instinct and common sense. It's called Aura of Courage, not Aura of Stupidity.

The Kender description of all things takes pains to make this clear. That's right OP, one of your players is officially dumber than a Kender.

Toadkiller
2015-02-28, 10:39 AM
This sounds more like the player trying to be the center of attention than anything else. To an extent that's fine, everyone should get their time in the spotlight. But if having him do this isn't too g to get the game where it needs to go then nudge the plot along.

The dragons can be gone when he gets there. Or they can be fighting at 10000 feet. Or make it a Gandalf type battle- some talking a couple of flashes and it is done.

Presumably this plot point is happening for a reason. Get past this and on to the reason.

dream
2015-02-28, 11:29 AM
How about actually playing it straight?

Let the characters make their own choices, and then roll out the combat. The paladin may well die, but he might survive. Likewise, if the dragons are roughly evenly matched, there is a decent chance the paladin will actually alter the outcome of the fight.

This is the easiest way to handle it, and it actually allows the characters to think for themselves and make informed decisions.


Now, this is only a short term solution. If the characters simply don't have enough shared motivation to stick together the party needs to split up and people need to reroll more compatible characters; if that doesn't interest them then the gaming group needs to split up and find tables with more like minded players.
+10 this.

1. The GM creates a scene.
2. A player decides to interact with the scene.
3. The GM has a problem with a player interacting with his presented scene?:smallconfused:

If you don't want players throwing themselves into the teeth of your "This is too dangerous! You're just supposed to watch & be amazed, guys!" scene, then don't present those scenes to players. Writing a book would make more sense here. Do you have a pre-planned outcome for your dragon battle & you're afraid the player might change it?

You're honoring other players' decisions to hide & do nothing, but the active player who does something is a problem? I hope you see the open contradiction you're creating with running a game that way.

You're openly opposed to the player's tactics, so you have a decision to make:
1. Tell them that kind of behavior is prohibited in your game & if it continues, the player is no longer welcome in the group
2. Convince the player to change tactics
3. Deal with it, realizing TTRPGs are all about choice and its consequences

#3 is why I love this hobby:smallamused:

Kaveman26
2015-02-28, 11:51 AM
Unconventional Outcome 1: Red Dragon takes the Paladin hostage

Instead of swatting the fly, he uses your wayward crusader as a literal human shield. Goldie can't deliver the finishing blow because he would kill the paladin. The red dragon uses his bargaining chip to coerce a negative outcome and end the fight on his terms. Afterwards he discards the paladin and mocks him for his interference, or holds him captive and waits for the eventual rescue.

Pros: The character doesnt die, learns a possible lesson, and we drive other plot developments.

Cons: Split Party, and potentially split purpose. They may not attempt to rescue him, or doing so could actually deter from main trunk of plot.

Outcome 2: Because sometimes death is too easy.

Have Big Red destroy the Paladin's sword. If he has a horse, let the dragon eat it. Deny him a good death and instead take away the item he values the most.

Pros: You now have a character that has learned a big time lesson, can't simply be raised or re-roll, and you now have a tie back for why they will hunt down this dragon.

Cons: Kind of an obtuse and disdainful move. My players would much rather burn to cinders than lose gear.

Jay R
2015-02-28, 02:00 PM
Look at the character sheet, and see if Wisdom and Intelligence are both less than 6. If so, let him do it. If not, remind him that his character is not a fool, and knows that he can't help, that he'd probably die, and all the people he could help in the future would lose that help just because he couldn't rein in his ego.

SiuiS
2015-02-28, 02:04 PM
Email him. Play it out and hey, maybe he even survives! Big if not, the players get the cliff's notes version.

Much cleaner. Doesn't waste anyone's time.

Narren
2015-02-28, 03:46 PM
This reminds of my one of my favorite moments as a player. We were playing a sci-fi game and we found ourselves on an asteroid. The air and gravity was made survivable by some jury rigged machine that we happened to be standing next to. It was relatively fragile, and the DM told our techie that one stray shot would destroy it and kill us (to add a scary element to the combat and keep us from shooting the place up, both the good guys and bad guys knew this).

Some crime boss has us by the short hairs and we're outnumbered and told to surrender.

Me: I point my plasma pistol at the generator and tell them "lay down your weapons and walk away, or we all die."

DM: Ok, roll a bluff check.

Me: [without skipping a beat] I'm not bluffing.

My DM was a bit taken aback. He knew my character wouldn't let himself be taken, and he knew he had inadvertently stuck a TPK in the room with us. They dropped their weapons and walked away.

jaydubs
2015-02-28, 04:13 PM
You're honoring other players' decisions to hide & do nothing, but the active player who does something is a problem? I hope you see the open contradiction you're creating with running a game that way.


Generally speaking, any player who decides to "go their own way despite the rest of the party" on a consistent basis, is the problem. That player becomes a problem from the simple fact that there's usually only one DM. And if a single player continously wanders off, it pulls away play time from everyone else.


Yeah, I guess I should have explained the root problem. See, nobody else in the party ever goes along with him. So basically the next game is going to start with the rest of the party hiding in the forest while I spend time going through the motions of the paladin's death. Meanwhile, the rest of the group is just sitting there waiting to get on with the adventure.

Remember, this is the stated issue. So it really doesn't matter if that lone player falls on the cautious side of things, or the risk-taking side of things. What matters is if they can or can't roleplay within the bounds of not making the other players wait all the time.


...
Pros: The character doesnt die, learns a possible lesson, and we drive other plot developments.
...
Pros: You now have a character that has learned a big time lesson, can't simply be raised or re-roll, and you now have a tie back for why they will hunt down this dragon.
...

I'd caution against trying to use DM powers to teach anyone a lesson. Sometimes it can work. But often it comes off as patronizing, an abuse of DM control, or as directed against the player rather than the character. One only has to take a look through one of the "nightmare session" threads to see it's one of the more commonly complained about behaviors.

Gritmonger
2015-02-28, 11:16 PM
You could always have the red dragon eat him. Make it a reincarnation instead of resurrection, unless the party members are so loyal and loving towards paladin that they are willing to go sifting through red dragon scat...

Maglubiyet
2015-02-28, 11:40 PM
This shouldn't all be up to the DM here. Presumably the other players are annoyed by constantly being sidelined for this guy's character's glorious deaths.

The rest of the party could roleplay their (legitimate) objections to watching their comrade march off to certain death. If they are related to the PC or are longtime friends they might have an honest complaint that this guy killing himself would be HURTING them -- very un-paladin-like. Or they might argue that by suiciding he will doom the rest of the party who will need his sword arm to see them safely back to civilization through a forest filled with dragons. And what of the paladin's dependents back home -- an aging mother, his friend the friar, the kindly parishioners, his widow and hungry children? Who will pay the landlord after he is unceremoniously devoured?

They could play on the lawful aspect -- maybe their adventuring company should draw up an incorporation contract and include a mutual-protection clause. No member is allowed to needlessly risk the lives of the other members, or something. A paladin couldn't knowingly break a contract like that.

VincentTakeda
2015-03-01, 03:54 PM
Yeah. I'd prefer not reading anyone at the tables personal preferences into this ahead of time...

Some players like watching a guy do some crazy solo stuff, and if you make his split from the party entertaining enough, some folks don't even have a problem with just sittin back and watching the show. If the players aren't on board with seeing how the party plays out, then the next decision is up to the paladin. He's choosing to leave a group that isn't invested in his exploits, so the choice for him might be 'your paladin becomes an npc and bravely marches offstage to do the honorable thing... and leave it at that.

Maybe down the road we learn what happened to him... Maybe we don't. But if the rest of the table isn't keen on the idea of watching the 'paladin show' from the safety of the cheap seats, then its time for him to put together a chararcter that doesnt run off on his own so much.

Either way you slice it, it should be up to the players themselves how to handle it.

The one thing I wouldn't do is if they decide they're ok with spectating, to then just simply 'decide' that the paladin dies for sure. This is the point where you should just play it believably and let the dice fall where they may. I'd be putting my money on a gold dragon winning a fight with any other dragon one on one unless the gold dragon is younger, and with the help of another paladin, especially a wise paladin who doesnt just put himself in harms way... I can think of a lot of poetically awesome ways this could roll out...

Sure the dragon might let the paladin help out. But why assume?

Paladins are about honor so maybe the gold dragon sees him trying to help and says 'stay back little paladin... this is my fight...'
What if he wins? He will thank the paladin for his attempt to assist and the story of the paladins brave and selfless honor will spread at dragon speed.
What if he loses? The bad dragon may turn on the paladin... Who will then most likely die an honorable death on his own.
Maybe the bad dragon chides the wee man and besmirches his honor by considering him not worthy of a fight. New future boss adversary! Maybe the paladin then makes a challenge of a duel of his own and then gets an 'official' honor duel with the bad dragon.
Maybe the paladin challenges the bad dragon to an honor duel and the dragon says its not very honorable to challenge an opponent immediatel after a battle, but let me rest up and i'll come for you.
Maybe the bad dragon toys with him but leaves him for dead and tells him to spread word that there's a new wyrm in town.



Lots of fun ways to do this, but only if the rest of the party cares to experience it. If they're not interested, that paladin rides off bravely to battle and its time for a new pc for the paladin player, perhaps this time with a little less desire to wander off on his own, noble purposes or not.

zinycor
2015-03-02, 12:13 AM
My problem with this scenario is that why did you show them the 2 dragons fighting if they didn't stand any chance to have any input in the battle.

What I mean is, if a Golden dragon (Which is good) and a black dragon (bad dragon) are fighting, i have interest on the Gold dragon winning (Asumming I am good, but for a paladin that's a given), so even if I am not able to go and fight the black dragon on my own, there should be something that i could do to help, this could be something small, like helping the good dragons get civilians out of the way, or something kinda big, like making a distraction so the golden dragon can defeat the black dragon...

The point is, if you as a DM introduce something as interesting as evil vs bad to the characters, is only natural that they will want to take part on it, after all, is a very epic story to tell afterwards.

Is much more epic to say: Remember when we all got killed by those 2 dragons?!! that was ****ing stupid, but man, you can't deny it was awesome.

than to say: remember those 2 dragons? yeah, they truly fought while we ran like cowards and did nothing for anyone but stay alive.

Lord Torath
2015-03-02, 10:37 AM
Yeah. I'd prefer not reading anyone at the tables personal preferences into this ahead of time...

Some players like watching a guy do some crazy solo stuff, and if you make his split from the party entertaining enough, some folks don't even have a problem with just sittin back and watching the show. If the players aren't on board with seeing how the party plays out, then the next decision is up to the paladin. He's choosing to leave a group that isn't invested in his exploits, so the choice for him might be 'your paladin becomes an npc and bravely marches offstage to do the honorable thing... and leave it at that.

Maybe down the road we learn what happened to him... Maybe we don't. But if the rest of the table isn't keen on the idea of watching the 'paladin show' from the safety of the cheap seats, then its time for him to put together a character that doesnt run off on his own so much.

Either way you slice it, it should be up to the players themselves how to handle it.I'm going to agree with Mr Takeda here. See what the rest of the table wants to do. If they're sick of him going off on solo suicide missions, NPC his paladin and kill him off quickly. If they're fine with it, play it out.

Also, consider how exciting it isn't to watch epic monsters fight it out without having anything to do.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-02, 12:14 PM
If you're not interested in seeing it kill the characters, don't put it in the game for them to interact with.

Trevortni
2015-03-02, 01:19 PM
My problem with this scenario is that why did you show them the 2 dragons fighting if they didn't stand any chance to have any input in the battle.

What I mean is, if a Golden dragon (Which is good) and a black dragon (bad dragon) are fighting, i have interest on the Gold dragon winning (Asumming I am good, but for a paladin that's a given), so even if I am not able to go and fight the black dragon on my own, there should be something that i could do to help, this could be something small, like helping the good dragons get civilians out of the way, or something kinda big, like making a distraction so the golden dragon can defeat the black dragon...

The point is, if you as a DM introduce something as interesting as evil vs bad to the characters, is only natural that they will want to take part on it, after all, is a very epic story to tell afterwards.

Is much more epic to say: Remember when we all got killed by those 2 dragons?!! that was ****ing stupid, but man, you can't deny it was awesome.

than to say: remember those 2 dragons? yeah, they truly fought while we ran like cowards and did nothing for anyone but stay alive.


If you're not interested in seeing it kill the characters, don't put it in the game for them to interact with.

Maybe both of you missed where the OP said that the problem is not the willingness of the group to do this fight, but the tendency of this one player to ditch his allies and leave them twiddling their thumbs while he runs off on his own to get killed.

endur
2015-03-02, 01:31 PM
The point is, if you as a DM introduce something as interesting as evil vs bad to the characters, is only natural that they will want to take part on it, after all, is a very epic story to tell afterwards.

Is much more epic to say: Remember when we all got killed by those 2 dragons?!! that was ****ing stupid, but man, you can't deny it was awesome.
Red
than to say: remember those 2 dragons? yeah, they truly fought while we ran like cowards and did nothing for anyone but stay alive.

Exactly. The GM needs to adjust to player actions and let the player participate even though the GM never intended the player to participate. If the GM places a BBEG where a player can attack it, the GM should not just hand wave away the effect of the player (oh paladin can't really affect Red Dragon attacking Gold Dragon).

It is hard for a GM to adjust spontaneously, especially when the party is being split. But if the GM can make the adjustment effectively, the story can become even better.

Ceiling_Squid
2015-03-02, 01:57 PM
Ice him. There is nothing wrong with killing a character that willingly jumps into situations that are obviously too much for him to handle.

That said, why are you making your PCs spectators? Even if they can't do anything about the dragon fight, there should be something for PCs to do. Help villagers escape, stop the flood that the dragons create when they crash through a dam, deal with the evil dragon's entourage who are harrying the gold dragon, or whatever. It's no wonder you have a PC who wants to get involved if they're being treated as spectators.

Failing all else, though, if the paladin wants to try it, let him get one lucky hit that does minimal damage but distracts the evil dragon for a moment. He gets brutally eviscerated, but his sacrifice allows the gold dragon to win, or escape.

Damn straight. At least give him a slight chance of altering the outcome, and keep it brief so you aren't taking too much time from the party.

Now to play devil's advocate:

This is an avoidable problem. I'm frankly a bit annoyed to see the majority of the thread placing so much sole blame on the paladin's player, when I strongly suspect that we might have a case of a player being frustrated by the "spectator effect". The symptoms are there.

If a player is consistently sending characters to die, maybe he doesn't like no-win conditions. "That's what my character would do" is often held up as a sign of a bad player, but it can also be a sign that the DM is making a player feel restricted.

Does the rest of the party actually like having to run from these things? I've been in games that hinged on "awesome" cutscene battles, and regardless of people being pragmatic or foolish, not being able to effect the action made me feel powerless and bored. It's DM self-indulgence.

Best thing the DM can do right now is introduce side effects of the fight that the players CAN effect, instead of a bland, non-interactive set piece battle.

Give the Paladin an overriding priority that the other players also can effect. Maybe some simple hunters or innocent travellers nearby are endangered by collateral damage, and the paladin's tendency to defend the weak might override an attempt to help the dragon. He hears a scream or a panicked cry for help, mere moments away from the rest of the party. Rampaging, fleeing wildlife. Anything, really, to give him a moment to pause and rethink his priorities, and do make sure whatever it is is something the other players can do without risking certain death.

The point is, if you've got a known bravely suicidal character paired with a pragmatic party, don't present them with a run/die binary choice that will certainly split them. That's your mistake as a DM, and it also is exacerbated by railroaded cutscenes. Give them secondary objectives to distract them if they aren't meant to engage the main event.

Give them the illusion of agency, if nothing else.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 02:27 PM
I would say that most "It's what my character would do" problems have a more fundamental root.

The players enjoy different things and are unable to reach a compromise.

Imagine, if you will, a group where half the players came to the table to feel like heroes and the other half came to the table to act out sociopathic power fantasies.

For one side to have fun the other side is going to have to suffer to some extent. This is a bad situation and, depending on the nature of the people involved, one without any simple answers.

But it isn't really fair for the DM to choose one side as "right" and declare that the other side is playing the game wrong when that isn't the game they signed up for.

Now, if you want to run a specific kind of campaign, and the players are on board with playing that sort of campaign, then you need to make this clear upfront and tell them before they make a character what sort of personality is allowed.

For example, many DMs would actually punish the paladin for NOT attempting to help the gold dragon, and going by the RAW code they wouldn't be wrong. If you aren't playing that sort of game you need to be upfront with the player before letting them make a paladin.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-02, 02:50 PM
Maybe both of you missed where the OP said that the problem is not the willingness of the group to do this fight, but the tendency of this one player to ditch his allies and leave them twiddling their thumbs while he runs off on his own to get killed. I obviously didn't miss it, because my other advice in this discussion speaks directly to it. So, no need to patronizing.

Anyway, what I said still applies. If the GM doesn't want the player ditching his allies, the GM put in things he might ditch his allies for and leave them twiddling their thumbs. He's depending on the player to act a certain way, and he can't depend on that. If he wants to be able to, he needs to talk to the players and get some agreement, and maybe be willing to modify the scene he has in mind.

I think talking to the player is definitely necessary, and I'm looking forward to the original poster reporting how that conversation went.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-02, 04:00 PM
{scrubbed}

Doing what your character would do? That exactly what roleplaying is. Being someone else an acting according to their priorities, not your own.

Ceiling_Squid
2015-03-02, 04:23 PM
{scrubbed}

Doing what your character would do? That exactly what roleplaying is. Being someone else an acting according to their priorities, not your own.

Contextually, it's often cited as an example of a player making excuses for disruptive behavior. And rightfully so.

That said, I don't think this situation necessarily falls into that common interpretation.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-02, 04:33 PM
{scrubbed}

Doing what your character would do? That exactly what roleplaying is. Being someone else an acting according to their priorities, not your own. Yes, some people roleplay that way. They don't care about the social situation, because their character doesn't care. That's a fine way to play, unless not everyone at the table is playing the same way. Taking actions that the character would take and which are compatible with the social situation is also a way to roleplay.

SiuiS
2015-03-02, 04:45 PM
Maybe both of you missed where the OP said that the problem is not the willingness of the group to do this fight, but the tendency of this one player to ditch his allies and leave them twiddling their thumbs while he runs off on his own to get killed.

And the response "sideline him, run the main game and let that player have his solo session when convenient" has already been given. The responses you responded to was 'hey, everyone go with him so it's NOT solo time'.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 08:57 PM
Doing what your character would do it the opposite of bad roleplaying.

It might, however, be a bad way of playing a roleplaying game.

First, you do have some control in how your character will behave, particularly when you are creating it. In a lot of cases the problem is making a character who won't get along with the rest of the party or the DM's campaign. That you are playing the character how they were intended is not the issue, the issue is bringing such a character to the table in the first place.

There is also the issue of your characters fidelity being more important than the other players enjoyment. For example, maybe your paladin would kill the party assassin, but is the discomfort caused by your having to play your character wrong more important than the (presumably much greater) discomfort of the assassin's player needing to die and reroll? This of course goes both ways, which is why party creation needs to have a serious element of communication and compromise.

Likewise the DM needs to temper verisimilitude with the setting with the players enjoyment. It might be realistic to lock a PC thief up in a dungeon or cut off his hands, but that likely won't be fun for the player. Likewise if the party is captured by the pirates they weren't sent out to battle there is a good chance the pirates will do some very unpleasant things to any female party members in a realistic game, but very few DMs in their right mind would actually have such consequences as the discomfort it puts the players under far far outweighs the benefit of having true to life villains.

DarkestKnight
2015-03-03, 01:04 AM
I'm going to throw my vote in with the 'let him do it' camp here. While there are reasonable limitations, letting your PC's play out their characters is pretty much a prime directive. However, there may be ways that you can make the player feel like they are contributing, although in a minor way.

For clarification, how does the paladin operate with his code? There are a surprising number of variations between 'Protect the weak', 'Purge the evil', and 'Lawful dumb'. If he is running back into combat to help the dragon how do you think he is going to do it? use what spells he has to heal/buff the dragon or go toe-to-toe with the enemy dragons? Running a bit of magical support could make a minor difference and the player's intent recognized. If he wants to enter combat, unless he finds a conveniently unattended ballista, I doubt he would pose a serious threat. If you give him the opportunity to be a legitimate threat to dragons (as in via magical Flak cannons (I should note that other than the nearby forest I have no clue as to the setting of the encounter)) and he takes it, then the NPCS should respond as such.

When I DM I try to give my characters enough space and opportunity that they feel like they have free will. And as such they should be prepared to reap what they sow. And if your paladin is lawful dumb and sees no danger in this plan (The DM won't kill me! I'm a PC!), this could be a very useful opportunity for making him reevaluate life choices (the paladin, not the player. well maybe the player too.)

fallensaviour
2015-03-04, 12:44 AM
some of my favorite rpg moments came from doing something the dm thought was foolish then getting the rolls to back it up...though the times i've split the party for too long were usually run as solo adventures between sessions....except the one where we were totally on a space ship and i was crawling through the maintenance droid tunnels because i was the only one small enough to do so

Milodiah
2015-03-05, 10:32 PM
You guys REALLY ARE missing the point this badly, aren't you?

OP's fine with actually HAVING the battle, it's the fact that he doesn't want to keep wasting the 2-6 other players' time letting this guy run off and play hero when the rest of the party rather adamantly said "no".

Honestly, the way I see it, the narrative follows the party. He left the party to go fight the dragon, so the narrative isn't following him anymore. Sure, you can swing back around and let him play it out sometime, but if this is a genuine suicide mission then he's practically resigned from the party anyway, so he is no longer relevant.

Ceiling_Squid
2015-03-06, 11:22 AM
You guys REALLY ARE missing the point this badly, aren't you?

OP's fine with actually HAVING the battle, it's the fact that he doesn't want to keep wasting the 2-6 other players' time letting this guy run off and play hero when the rest of the party rather adamantly said "no".

Honestly, the way I see it, the narrative follows the party. He left the party to go fight the dragon, so the narrative isn't following him anymore. Sure, you can swing back around and let him play it out sometime, but if this is a genuine suicide mission then he's practically resigned from the party anyway, so he is no longer relevant.

ARE we missing the point, though?

I see a couple of suggestions on how to involve the party as a whole, particularly by having a more immediate and nearby secondary threat crop up that they could all deal with. Something pressing that might sidetrack the paladin and give the party a threat they can actually engage.

If the paladin decides to press on his original course instead, then we'll just "come back" to him later.

I also see a lot of admonitions against "cutscene battles" the party isn't able to effect in the first place, and a few points about how this could be avoided in the future.

I think the point is actually getting some reasonable discussion.

Milodiah
2015-03-06, 02:26 PM
This is true (also, I apologize for the edge of rudeness up there, I had a killer headache last night and my mood was matching it).

My primary GM splits his attention between a split party based more on the number of PCs per group, as opposed to significance to the plot, relative levels of action/excitement, etc. I've found this to be a fairly optimal solution to the issues of splitting the party, because player-character allocation does tend to follow the levels of action involved. For example, last major party split was 3 PCs infiltrating a military R&D lab in disguise, while the other ~1.75 PCs (one full-time main PC who was joined by two characters controlled by two easily distracted and generally sporadic players) tried to track down the escaped "experiments" in order to find out about their escape tunnels.

Due to the fact it was 3 main PCs versus 1 main PC and two other dudes (in reality this fellow was alone for most of that), as well as the fact that group 1 was engaging in exploration of the objective with sporadic combat while group two was doing things like speaking to a local archaeologist, driving halfway across Texas to talk to a potential escapee, etc. we got most of the focus, but when the focus shifted we still had the opportunity to discuss our next move without the GM applying pressure or introducing new threats.

By this logic, the thing I would do in this situation is give the group about 30 minutes real-time getting to either a good pausing point or a good cliffhanger depending on how sadistic I feel, then cutting back to this fellow arriving on scene, with the justification that it took him time to return to the battlefield, track down the two dragons since they've probably flown off during the continuing fight, etc. Then give him the five to fifteen minutes it would take to resolve a fight with an already-weakened badguy dragon, an even more weakened goodguy dragon, and Joe Schmo the random pally crashing into the clearing brandishing his sword like a marginally less delusional Don Quixote.

Due to the absurd power-level of my primary group, I usually am not afraid of throwing fights I assume are too big to handle at them when I GM, because I've seen the **** they handle. We're currently playing Rifts. Primary GM tosses a train-sized giant cyborg centipede monster at us, we knock it from a couple thousand HP MDC to literally 9 before we decide "Meh, this thing no longer poses us any threat" and going about our business. Primary GM tosses recurring battles versus small groups ridiculous flying animated suit of armor with more MDC than the high-grade power armor in our party, can go from 0 to Mach 1 in a quarter second, is literally 99% immune to laser/plasma/ion/particle-beam fire, can engage targets from a mile away with a magical halberd that can shoot plasma and sweep the area like a flamethrower, etc. etc. and we shoot a few down. Probably because there was a Glitter Boy at that second fight, but still.

At one point during a naval/pirate campaign, I threw a Coalition patrol boat versus their patrol boat. No big deal, they slightly outclass the PCs in weaponry but the PC's boat has marines aboard. Then I roll to see nearby forces. Yep, a destroyer's right over the horizon.

Player summons an eighty-ton sea monster that practically swallows the patrol boat in one attack. Destroyer notices distress beacon, sends a wing of flying power armor troopers to check it out. This player and the other caster collaborate with a screwy spell combo to make the thing fly. It eats the flying power armor troops, or at least most of them, in what was perhaps the strangest dogfight in Coalition history (to illustrate, it was six of these (http://static.oper.ru/data/site/samas_armor.jpg) being chased around the sky by this (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/SAMASzero/SeaMaw.png&imgrefurl=https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f%3D4%26t%3D156753%26start%3D175&h=378&w=644&tbnid=_V2wpgd-5DivvM:&zoom=1&docid=W3KzaHtpm0YJNM&ei=Qf35VO_FKoudyAS6kYGgAw&tbm=isch&ved=0CB0QMygAMAA)). Then the thing gets sent to attack the destroyer five times its size, and it freaks them out so badly they deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

So yeah, I've always accepted that a sufficiently resourceful player (*coughcoughIancough*) can and probably will find a way to beat a technically superior enemy force even if you don't pull the punches. I know in 3.5 there's a lot more mechanics to support the idea of a level 5 paladin being bound to lose versus a level (I dunno, let's say) 15 or 20 dragon (which I assume has class levels in something pretty scary given it's beating a dragon of equal level with class levels of paladin), but I will never allow my assumptions to become assertions when I am GMing.

goto124
2015-03-06, 11:06 PM
...which falls apart if you know your players don't have that kind of intelligence?