Party Abandoned Player

[Nykolo]

I was in a game on Roll20 with my dad as the DM. It was me, my friend, and three others from a previous campaign my dad invited.
We are in a puzzle dungeon, where we were split up by a fear attack. Two of the guys from the previous campaign was with my friend, and they were attacked by ogres. They were doing well, until the ogre dropped my friend's character's hp to 0. After that, the other two just left him there with the ogres.
Me and my friend were pretty upset about this, and the guys just went off as "Well, that's what my character would do" but I noticed they ALWAYS play that kind of character. Fortunately he passed his death saves. My character found him and now, without any way of healing, he is carrying him through the dungeon that is sinking by the minute.
I am kind of tempted to just talk to my friend and leave. I know the DM is my dad, but I don't feel comfortable with what the guys did.
What do you guys think I should do?

[suplee215]

I was in a game on Roll20 with my dad as the DM. It was me, my friend, and three others from a previous campaign my dad invited.
We are in a puzzle dungeon, where we were split up by a fear attack. Two of the guys from the previous campaign was with my friend, and they were attacked by ogres. They were doing well, until the ogre dropped my friend's character's hp to 0. After that, the other two just left him there with the ogres.
Me and my friend were pretty upset about this, and the guys just went off as "Well, that's what my character would do" but I noticed they ALWAYS play that kind of character. Fortunately he passed his death saves. My character found him and now, without any way of healing, he is carrying him through the dungeon that is sinking by the minute.
I am kind of tempted to just talk to my friend and leave. I know the DM is my dad, but I don't feel comfortable with what the guys did.
What do you guys think I should do?

#1 advice is to talk to them about it. If they always play that type of characters I don't see anything too wrong about it. I mean it's a bit of a **** move but it wasn't pvp or even just left. In a fight or flight situation, flight is perfectible acceptable. especially if one member already died. A question does become "why will anyone travel with these selfish *******s".

[imanidiot]

They probably started playing in the 70s or 80s. Then it was pretty common to just roll a new character when yours died and shove them into the party with no explanation. So there wasn't much point to risking your character to save someone else's which was already basically dead anyway.

You're expecting Lord of the Rings and they're expecting Conan the Barbarian. There's nothing wrong with either way, you just need to clarify whether or not your characters can rely on support from the other PCs.

[mephnick]

The primary goal of every adventurer is to survive. If the ogres were too strong and it was looking grim I'd be out of there just like..shockingly fast. I played in the days where you learned to cut your losses or the campain ended. I think you're overreacting.

[War_lord]

If your character dies just roll up a new character, it's important to resist the temptation to get super attached to one character.

[furby076]

I'd say talk it out. Frankly, if the character who got abandoned and his rescuer make it out then they have absolutely 0 reasons to adventure with the other two. "Oh yea, you left me to die, so i'll continue to trust you"...yea, NOPE. In game your characters would drop them...heck, depending on the characters, they may try and seek revenge.

If the players don't want to change the way they play, then find a new group.

[FreddyNoNose]

The primary goal of every adventurer is to survive. If the ogres were too strong and it was looking grim I'd be out of there just like..shockingly fast. I played in the days where you learned to cut your losses or the campain ended. I think you're overreacting.

I agree with this.

heck we had death dungeon nights (before we had modules btw) and I rolled over a dozen characters before getting inside the dungeon. It was great fun when we finally got in! Some people will not understand it though.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Gonna have to say that its a weird spot. If it happened to me, i might not be mad about it, i might even have my character continue on with the party. However, I would definitely remember this. I'd want a little bit more explanation than 'my character would do it' though. Even if its 'too dangerous to go back'. Expect this scenario to happen:

https://media.tenor.com/images/757a4125fdee241564534d7171121e5b/tenor.gif


However, i don't think you aren't unjustified. If you want a party that is more 'leave no one behind' then thats fine. talk to the players about this as well as the DM.

I know some people that take literally days to make characters, so dying is really inconvenient and very frustrating, especially if it could be avoided by the party picking you up.

I take 5 minutes though, and sort of enjoy creating and killing characters. so i know it's different for everyone.

[Pex]

I was in a game on Roll20 with my dad as the DM. It was me, my friend, and three others from a previous campaign my dad invited.
We are in a puzzle dungeon, where we were split up by a fear attack. Two of the guys from the previous campaign was with my friend, and they were attacked by ogres. They were doing well, until the ogre dropped my friend's character's hp to 0. After that, the other two just left him there with the ogres.
Me and my friend were pretty upset about this, and the guys just went off as "Well, that's what my character would do" but I noticed they ALWAYS play that kind of character. Fortunately he passed his death saves. My character found him and now, without any way of healing, he is carrying him through the dungeon that is sinking by the minute.
I am kind of tempted to just talk to my friend and leave. I know the DM is my dad, but I don't feel comfortable with what the guys did.
What do you guys think I should do?

"That's what my character would do" is never a forgiving excuse for jerk behavior. Players control the characters. Characters do not control the players. The players chose to be jerks. If that behavior bothers you, you tell them it bothers you, and they refuse to change their behavior, then don't play with them anymore. It is an out of game problem that can never be fixed in game.

[FreddyNoNose]

Gonna have to say that its a weird spot. If it happened to me, i might not be mad about it, i might even have my character continue on with the party. However, I would definitely remember this. I'd want a little bit more explanation than 'my character would do it' though. Even if its 'too dangerous to go back'. Expect this scenario to happen:

https://media.tenor.com/images/757a4125fdee241564534d7171121e5b/tenor.gif


However, i don't think you aren't unjustified. If you want a party that is more 'leave no one behind' then thats fine. talk to the players about this as well as the DM.

I know some people that take literally days to make characters, so dying is really inconvenient and very frustrating, especially if it could be avoided by the party picking you up.

I take 5 minutes though, and sort of enjoy creating and killing characters. so i know it's different for everyone.

So his way is the "right" way? They are of different minds and purposes. It BS if you are trying to say that. Hell, if it really is role playing then the characters should have their own motivations. It isn't jerk behavior either.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So his way is the "right" way? They are of different minds and purposes. It BS if you are trying to say that. Hell, if it really is role playing then the characters should have their own motivations. It isn't jerk behavior either.

Not sure if you read my post at all, so let me rephrase.

The OP isn't 'wrong' being upset that the rest of the party abandoned his friend. However, it may not be a 'leave the group' situation, which is why I suggested talking with the DM and the players. Ideally this talk would have happened before the game started in a session 0. Teamwork is a big issue with alot of players, this is understandable. I would rather play in a party that looks after one another than one filled with people that only look after themselves. Of course, if they are say a group of mercenaries, rather than a fellowship on a quest, its a bit different.

This being said, I also stated what I myself would do if it happened to me and my character (in most characters, sometimes I roleplay the forgive and forget types. ) which is bring vengeance down upon them the next chance that would also benefit me. But thats more in character, as a player I don't mind dying so its no big deal, especially if they role-played the whole moral dilemma of leaving a comrade to die. To me it makes it extra worth it.

[Chugger]

"That's what my character would do" is never a forgiving excuse for jerk behavior. Players control the characters. Characters do not control the players. The players chose to be jerks. If that behavior bothers you, you tell them it bothers you, and they refuse to change their behavior, then don't play with them anymore. It is an out of game problem that can never be fixed in game.

Right as usual, Pex.

Sometimes you gotta lay down the law. Sometimes that means no, I'm not playing here.

That your Dad's the DM makes it tough. But you can tell him you don't want to play with such people.

Especially if the ogre fight was very winnable, which the OP indicates, this was jerk behavior, as Pex calls it correctly.

[Sigreid]

Would need more information. If it looked to the player like the character was staring at his impending doom, I don't see why he should be expected to stay and die like a good little mook. If the perception is that the surviving character could finish the ogre, that's different.

One character dying doesn't obligate any of the other characters to die.

[djreynolds]

My character found him and now, without any way of healing, he is carrying him through the dungeon that is sinking by the minute.

This sounds fun. It's a homebrew and as long as you guys can rest, he should heal. Work hard and the DM will surely throw you a "rope"

Tell your dad you'll mow the lawn and in return he'll drop some lichen that heals.

This is fun.

And in regards to the other players, was this a timed adventure?

Were the ogres still alive and fighting?

Sometimes you have to move on or you will all die.

Death is part of the game, and sometimes you die and go unburied. Just like the skeleton you found in room 2B, the one you took the magic mace off of, or the dead wizard next to him with the awesome spell book.

Just have fun and enjoy it. Be in the moment.... and live for vengeance.

[FreddyNoNose]

Right as usual, Pex.

Sometimes you gotta lay down the law. Sometimes that means no, I'm not playing here.

That your Dad's the DM makes it tough. But you can tell him you don't want to play with such people.

Especially if the ogre fight was very winnable, which the OP indicates, this was jerk behavior, as Pex calls it correctly.

I guess people need to be part of the echo chamber............

[Gryndle]

I think there is a disconnect here. to those that are saying "oh well, character's die, roll a new one." I think they are missing a critical point. The character wasn't dead.

Steep odds or not, the two that ran left a living companion behind. That is not survival instincts. At best that is flat out cowardice, at worst it is pure malicious out-for-#1& screw everyone else BS. I don't see any possible way for the victim or the OP's character to ever trust those two characters again. And if they can't trust them, why would they ever willingly go into danger with them again?

the real problem as I see it, is that both IN character and out of character, that was the kind of act that can break up a party and potentially kill a campaign.

I don't know what advice to give the OP here, considering the DM is his father and it seems to split the party strait down the middle.

I know if it were to happen in my group the burden would be on the two players that had their characters abandon their ally. Either they need to come up with a plan to make it right, or roll new characters.

[mephnick]

Especially if the ogre fight was very winnable

Did they know that? All the characters saw was an ogre drop a party member and that they're now 2 when 3 wasn't enough. The characters don't know what HP the ogres were at. I would have been fine with my party taking off if it looked hard.




Sometimes you gotta lay down the law. Sometimes that means no, I'm not playing here..

Unfortunately this is Pex's answer to every question. He is heavily biased against anyone that isn't himself. I wouldn't agree too quickly.

[Pex]

Unfortunately this is Pex's answer to every question. He is heavily biased against anyone that isn't himself. I wouldn't agree too quickly.

I don't apologize for not accepting jerk behavior from players. I'm at the game to have fun, not be with bullies.

[War_lord]

I think there is a disconnect here. to those that are saying "oh well, character's die, roll a new one." I think they are missing a critical point. The character wasn't dead.

And? I'm not a grognard by any means, but you aren't obligated to jump into danger to save potentially doomed party members. That's a concept created by modern players often leaning too heavily on Video Game tropes.


Steep odds or not, the two that ran left a living companion behind. That is not survival instincts. At best that is flat out cowardice, at worst it is pure malicious out-for-#1& screw everyone else BS. I don't see any possible way for the victim or the OP's character to ever trust those two characters again. And if they can't trust them, why would they ever willingly go into danger with them again?

No, that is survival instincts. The disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of games where every encounter is carefully balanced to not present a a mortal danger to even a halfway competent party. That's not necessarily the case at this table. The players in question sound like they're the same age group as the OP's father, which means they probably got into D&D in the olden days. In those days stuff was usually lethal and knowing when to cut your losses and escape was vital.


the real problem as I see it, is that both IN character and out of character, that was the kind of act that can break up a party and potentially kill a campaign.

Because people get too attached to their characters early on and then fall out with other players personally when those attachments are under attack. It's a bad habit that needs to be unlearned.


I don't know what advice to give the OP here, considering the DM is his father and it seems to split the party strait down the middle.

I know if it were to happen in my group the burden would be on the two players that had their characters abandon their ally. Either they need to come up with a plan to make it right, or roll new characters.

What an immensely childish worldview to have. You realize it's a game right?

[Thrudd]

I don't see anything wrong with what happened - it is completely justified if those two characters didn't think they could defeat the Ogres by themselves. What were they supposed to do, keep fighting and die all together? Now you've got three party members gone instead if just one.

No, they did the right thing, both from their characters' and a game strategy POV. The only weird thing is that the DM allowed the abandoned character to survive and be found (seems highly implausible) instead of having the Ogres drag him away and eat him, or at least finish him off, basically as soon as the fight was over. Then there'd be no conflict - the two survivors return, saying the Ogres killed the other party member and they barely escaped with their lives. Now you can all go get revenge, or leave to get reinforcements and then get revenge.

[Gryndle]

And? I'm not a grognard by any means, but you aren't obligated to jump into danger to save potentially doomed party members. That's a concept created by modern players often leaning too heavily on Video Game tropes.



No, that is survival instincts. The disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of games where every encounter is carefully balanced to not present a a mortal danger to even a halfway competent party. That's not necessarily the case at this table.



Because people get too attached to their characters early on and then fall out with other players personally when those attachments are under attack. It;'s a bad habit that needs to be unlearned.



What an immensely childish worldview to have.

wow antagonistic much?
first of all. I think I AM a grognard. Don't play much in the way of video games, and my players would not consider any encounter I throw at them to be less than potentially deadly. so you don't know s**t about me or my perspective.

It comes down to this: there are two types of people I despise and will not associate with in real life or in game: cowards and selfish a-holes. And abandoning a living ally in a fight is a chickens--t move any way you want to cut it. You can shine it up all you want, plate it in gold, doesn't matter. It is still crap.

edit: and I haven't said they should have stayed in the fight. But they should have taken the unconscious ally with them.
Courage and loyalty are not new ideas. Pretty old ones actually. Its unfortunate that these days they get so easily tossed aside because they are inconvenient.

[War_lord]

I'm antagonistic towards you because you apparently A. can't tell the difference between a fantasy tabletop game and reality and B. draw sweeping conclusions about people's actual personalities from how their tabletop characters act, which in this case was wisely.

You are exactly the sort of person on whom politeness is wasted, your "advice" leads to bad players behaving badly. D&D should never be taken personally. Nobody wants a volatile person at their table who's going to start yelling at them for being "cowards" for letting a fictitious avatar die. Like, this is some "Mazes and Monsters" stuff.

[mephnick]

edit: and I haven't said they should have stayed in the fight. But they should have taken the unconscious ally with them. .

Dragging an ally at half movement seems like a great way to get killed by ogres.

[War_lord]

Dragging an ally at half movement seems like a great way to get killed by ogres.

But if you don't "heroically" charge the Ogres and get slaughtered you're literally the moral equivalent of Francesco Schettino.

[Gryndle]

But if you don't "heroically" charge the Ogres and get slaughtered you're literally the moral equivalent of Francesco Schettino.

I was going to go with Martin Shkreli actually. :)

[Xetheral]

Because people get too attached to their characters early on and then fall out with other players personally when those attachments are under attack. It's a bad habit that needs to be unlearned.

As a DM I want my players to be strongly attached to their characters: the more invested they are, the more vivid and exciting my game can be. In my opinion, danger is more poignant, victories sweeter, and character growth more meaningful when the player feels a strong emotional connection to the character.

And yes, losing such a character is necessarily also a much stronger experience. But (1) that isn't always bad, and (2) I'm not willing to give up the vibrancy that strongly-invested players bring to my game just to ward off the possibility that the strong emotions involved might sometimes be negative ones.

[War_lord]

I'm not saying "don't have any connection to your character" I'm saying "don't develop an irrational emotional attachment to that one persona to the point that its death (which is a natural occurrence in D&D) becomes a personal attack on you".

As a player, I don't want to play with someone that easily set off, as a DM I don't want to have to softball my players constantly in fear of setting off that one guy.

[DeTess]

I think we really need more information, as a lot of the more heated responders to this thread seem to be making certain assumptions that may or may not be true.

@OP: based on what the players knew, could they have either easily dropped the ogres, or gotten your friend out of there without undue risk to themselves?

This having been said, you should listen to the people who said that you should talk to them out of game about this, and discuss the kind of game you want to have. If half the party expects heroic fantasy, and the other half gritty realistic medieval war, clashes like this are just going to happen, and decisions need to be made about how to continue on. I wouldn't go into any petty revenge schemes though. Either stop travelling with these 2, or accept their actions and travel on.

[Gorgo]

I've encountered similar behavior, and it often feels like players who use the "that's what my character would do" argument are using the metagame fact that they know the humans behind the other characters want to play the game to act in ways that would cause problems if that weren't the case.

My suggestion is to keep in mind that your characters have in-game reactions to his actions. IMO, it's perfectly reasonable for a character who's just witnessed a party member abandoning another to decide that no, they aren't willing to get into life-threatening situations with that person any more. There are situations where the only viable plan is for some of the party to run to avoid a TPK, but if a character isn't showing any willingness to take risks to save other party members, why would your character choose to get into risky situations alongside that character?

[Sigreid]

It comes down to this: there are two types of people I despise and will not associate with in real life or in game: cowards and selfish a-holes. And abandoning a living ally in a fight is a chickens--t move any way you want to cut it. You can shine it up all you want, plate it in gold, doesn't matter. It is still crap.


How would the characters have known he was still alive? Dude got squashed by an ogre's club. You could meta and treat him as alive. But character knowledge is that he got hit really hard and went down. They probably also knew if they got hit really hard they would go down as well.

[SiCK_Boy]

I would really need more information from the OP before passing judgment on the actual situation that happened. Information that would help includes the character's levels, the departing character's status (hp, available powers, etc.) at the time they decided to run, the ogre's status (how many hp lost), whether or not the players had a good way to assess their odds of success against the ogres (have they fought ogres before, how hard were those fights, how "winnable" does the fight seems at this point, etc.), the actual positioning of the characters in relations to each other at the time the decision was made to run (were the ogres between the runners and the fallen character), etc.

One other thing that is not specifically mentioned is how the players justified their actions at the table (such as did they actively discuss their odds and then decide to run because they clearly felt they were overmatched, or was it only one of them who said he was leaving without discussion or consideration of his partner and the fallen character; did they discuss options to try to pick up the fallen character but then dismiss it because it would be impractical; did they discuss options to come back later or to try to trick the ogres in the next few minutes, etc.). These justifications, to me, don't have to be made "in character", but are usually more "player-based", since it usually boils down to the tactical combat aspect of the game (can we beat these opponents, and if so, how).

However, there are still some general points to be made about situations of this kind.

As someone pointed out, the fallen character was not dead at the time they fled. He was unconscious and dying, which is a major difference. For all intents and purposes, the character should have been considered as alive (a single hp of magical healing brings him back to top fighting condition), and that certainly colors the actions of the running characters.

Also, someone tried to argue that the "characters" had their own motivations (essentially a "survival-motivated decision") to run and that it should somehow be distinguished from the "players". This is utter bull****. Whatever way the players try to rationalize or explain their actions based on in-characters reasons or motivations, it was still a player decision. Nobody put a gun to those players' heads saying the characters had to run; and the characters do not have a life of their own independent of their players. The character is still just an avatar for the player, and as such, only the player (or sometime the DM) can "force" the character to act in any way. Ultimately, the players are accountable for the actions they had their characters take, and it's up to the table and group of players to decide if they are fine with those actions or not. In most cases, any action can be fine or not, depending on the group and players' expectations; actual characterization of those characters (through past actions, roleplaying, or even just stating what their usual behavior is); and the specific circumstances being discussed.

One other point I found funny was how people were making the argument that the whole situation was a non-issue since the fallen character's player should just learn to not get attached to his characters and accept that they'll die (as if, having accepted his inevitable death, it would then make it okay for others to just abandon you in your darkest hour). I find it ironic that those same people do not blame the "runners", who were certainly attached enough to their characters to have them run from danger when, as far as we know, they (the players) were never in any danger at all, just sitting around a table (or at their computer) and trading words while imagining fantasy adventures. Taken to its extreme, this logic would lead to players just uselessly throwing away their character's lives since these do not matter and are not worthy of being attached to.

One basic point of the game is usually for the players to work together, as a group, to attain success while going through various adventures. Success can be measured in multiple ways, but surviving is usually part of the deal, and players are encouraged to help each other and to not take actions that are detrimental to each other's enjoyment of the game. Very few groups find it acceptable to have PvP attacks, or to have the wizard blast his fellow adventurers without their consent. Clerics are expected to heal other injured characters and to not "hoard" their healing powers for when they need it for themselves; melee combattants are expected to act as meat shield and cover weaker characters by taking hit for them.

Considering this, I would side with the camp who find it unacceptable to run away and abandon a fallen (but not dead) character and fellow player to its death. Even if that player had made a stupid move in the first place, I would still at a minimum try to work some angle or solution to save him, even at my own character's risk. I rarely play characters with a mercenary mindset, or who put themselves first, because I want to avoid exactly those kind of situations; I want the other players (and their characters) to know that, when I'm part of the group, I will do all that I can to help them make it through and to contribute to the group's overall success. I know not all players share this approach, but I cannot even understand why some would not do so (like, why play a social/cooperative game if you are not someone who likes to cooperate anyway?).

Ultimately, the solution is to talk about the whole thing with the rest of the group AND the DM. The DM could certainly provide useful input (such as how dangerous were the ogres, really; and maybe the way he represented them made things worse in this scenario - he could have rolled two crits in a row and players falsely assumed ogres hit for massive damage when really, they usually can survive many more hits before falling).

The runners should be forced to explain their decision. Even if they want to argue that "this is what my character would do", they should still be asked to explain "why" the character would do it (I assume it would boil down to "I did not want to die" and "I did not think there was anything that could be done to help the fallen character"/"I did not care about the fallen character"). This should then form the basis of the discussion: are these players cowards? Are these characters cowards? If the whole group knows they are coward, and is willing to accept it, then maybe it can work out - just don't ever put yourself in a situation where you rely on them. If it's just the characters, maybe the players should be encouraged to do new characters with a more heroic perspective on things.

In the end, it has nothing to do with one player being a special snowflake. I think it is the kind of situation that legitimately raises questions, and the best way to answer those is to actually talk them out (posting on a forum to get input can only help up to a certain point).

[Thrudd]

"That's what my character would do" as an excuse for constantly betraying, backstabbing and stealing from party members is BS and a reasonable case for the other PCs to kill or eject that PC from the party (now an NPC, make another character that plays better with the group).

"That's what my character would do" is valid and reasonable when you're talking about a character choosing to escape with their life rather than sacrifice themselves in a vain attempt at saving someone - even retreating when the rest are unconscious but maybe not dead yet, and it looks like no way to win the fight. Players whose characters got dropped in combat really shouldn't expect to be saved every time. Unconscious but stable is no different than dead when the enemies have won the fight and aren't retreating. The only time this is questionable is if the enemy has been defeated or driven away, and the players decide to abandon an unconscious character and take his stuff rather than reviving him. That is a pretty shady move (but shouldn't be unexpected if it's an evil or neutral aligned group).

It seems like the people thinking that "no man left behind" is the expected or even only way to behave as a player are used to DMs that play with kiddie gloves. Unless a peaceful withdrawal has been negotiated with the enemy, or they have been induced/tricked into allowing you to escape in some other way, there's no reason to think that being weighed down by an unconscious body would be a viable activity with determined enemies still trying to kill you. Perhaps you could argue that a good/brave person would at least make an attempt to save an unconscious ally, even if ultimately needing to abandon them - but not every PC should be expected to be such a "good person".

[Harrysonford]

That's how their characters act, I'm not saying it's ok, but now you're in a realistic scenario. A way to show your dislike of this in game without falling to their level, is you and the player they abandoned can act as if you two are your own party, and then they'll have to do something to make it up to you if they want your help again.

[FreddyNoNose]

Not sure if you read my post at all, so let me rephrase.

The OP isn't 'wrong' being upset that the rest of the party abandoned his friend. However, it may not be a 'leave the group' situation, which is why I suggested talking with the DM and the players. Ideally this talk would have happened before the game started in a session 0. Teamwork is a big issue with alot of players, this is understandable. I would rather play in a party that looks after one another than one filled with people that only look after themselves. Of course, if they are say a group of mercenaries, rather than a fellowship on a quest, its a bit different.

This being said, I also stated what I myself would do if it happened to me and my character (in most characters, sometimes I roleplay the forgive and forget types. ) which is bring vengeance down upon them the next chance that would also benefit me. But thats more in character, as a player I don't mind dying so its no big deal, especially if they role-played the whole moral dilemma of leaving a comrade to die. To me it makes it extra worth it.

How about the expectation being wrong? How about talking it out in character rather than the outside the role playing level.

[SiCK_Boy]

How about the expectation being wrong? How about talking it out in character rather than the outside the role playing level.

I think this is fundamentally a player issue. The player made the decision to run; and one of the fundamental way to assess the rightness of this situation would be to understand what factors were involved in his decision-making.

We are really lacking way too many information from the OP to make any informed decision in this specific circumstances.

I would only resort to a discussion of this kind "in character" if it had been clearly established that the runner is this kind of character (and then, my character could raise it as a kind of barb - rubbing in the fact that he keeps running whenever things get hairy). Otherwise, if the problem is a player issue (it bothers me as a player), then it should be addressed between players.

If I as a player have no issue with the behavior, but think my character should be bothered (ex: I'm playing a holier-than-thou paladin), then I could try to act it out, but depending on circumstances, I would make sure to let the other player know that I'm not really bothered by the whole thing.

In the OP's message, however, it looks like it is a behavior that is a problem for him, as a player. I don't think trying to address it in character would really help.

[Mortis_Elrod]

How about the expectation being wrong? How about talking it out in character rather than the outside the role playing level.
Bruh.

Because people don't always have the in character/out of character disconnect so when discussing a problem a player as with a character then its best do talk when both are aware it is being held out of character. I'm not saying role playing the situation out is wrong, I'm saying its not always the best option, or only option.

Alot of times when you work things out in character without discussing it out of character (so that both parties are on the same page) you end up with more problems.

Also I'm not sure which expectation you are talking about. If it's that the party works together to keep everyone alive and healthy, why is this a wrong expectation? From my experience this is the assumption unless otherwise noted before the campaign starts. If its the expectation that issues be resolved out of character so as to not disrupt the narrative... yeah no still not seeing it.

Explain yourself more.

[CaptainSarathai]

I wouldn't count it as a "leave the table" issue, unless it's between you and the DM.

If the DM is running a survivalist game, where the bones of fallen characters litter every hall and dungeon and only the strong (and lucky) survive, then you need to be aware of that and decide how you feel.
If these guys have been in games run by your dad, and know that your dad runs those games, then yeah, they made the right call by running. The issue then, would be your dad not telling you that you should expect fatal combats.
If your dad is running a less lethal campaign, then it might also not be a problem. Again, if these guys knew this then they might just be choosing to play sneaky, weedy-git characters and know (as players) that this won't necessarily get anyone killed. I'm actually leaning this way, based on the Ogres not landing the coup d'grace on your friend's character, for the auto kill.

In either case, handle it out of character with the other players if need be. Explain that you weren't aware that the "team" was gonna be the type to leave guys behind. If they say that yes, they are, then you decide how to handle it. Not every party is perfect, and sometimes this can lead to really cool stories and character development.
Just leaving is bad. These guys, as players, might actually like you and want you and your friend to stay. They might be able to work out a compromise. You won't know until you ask.
Then, if you stay, feel free to handle it in character. Admonish them for their cowardice, or form a more solid bond with your friend's character, and the next time one these guys hits the bricks you can remember how they treated their own allies and decide to leave them lay or take the high road and save them.

--
Hell, my recent campaign intentionally steered the party toward PvP, and the players handled it just fine. They knew what was up, and I had warned them that the game would feature some heavy decision making and darker moral themes. Knowing ahead of time meant that they could prepare for it, and know that there should not be any hard feelings.

[manyslayer]

Not to get into the right or wrong of how they acted, I would just play it as someone who was abandoned from here on out.

Did they come up to the character later with "Man, I thought that ogre killed you." or "When you went down we knew we had no chance against that brute."

If not, I'm not going to go off with them and not the character that saved me (and that I can trust) again. Also, I'm going to be more free with healing magics for myself and my friend during combat since I can't rely on them getting me back on my feet if I drop. That may mean I don't have one when they really need it but that's the outcome of their action.

[KorvinStarmast]

If your character dies just roll up a new character, it's important to resist the temptation to get super attached to one character. This. So much this. Except:

My character found him and now, without any way of healing, he is carrying him through the dungeon that is sinking by the minute. That's your new quest: Survival!!

You have the makings of a great story here. Your character has heroically tried to save your comrade. You did not indicate whether or not you have succeeded in dragging his 0 HP but stabilized body to safety. When you do, THAT's why we play. To do heroic and memorable stuff. Once you get away from the danger, have an in character or out of character discussion with the others and decide whether or not this party will stay together, and under what terms. I hope your Dad will award you XP for saving your friend, or at least an Inspiration point. (Per the DMG). Great role playing.

It is an out of game problem that can never be fixed in game. If the abandoning players do a lot of "my guy stuff" or if they are "two" and you others are (two or three) rather than the party being "four or five' then you guys have some team building to do as a party!

This sounds fun. It's a homebrew and as long as you guys can rest, he should heal. Work hard and the DM will surely throw you a "rope" Tell your dad you'll mow the lawn and in return he'll drop some lichen that heals. This is fun. And in regards to the other players, was this a timed adventure? Were the ogres still alive and fighting? Sometimes you have to move on or you will all die. Death is part of the game, and sometimes you die and go unburied. Just like the skeleton you found in room 2B, the one you took the magic mace off of, or the dead wizard next to him with the awesome spell book. Just have fun and enjoy it. Be in the moment.... and live for vengeance. Or take djreynold's advice. Good call, dj. :smallcool: