PDA

View Full Version : What would you do?



denthor
2019-08-22, 10:39 AM
Party in a ruin city 10 of us.

6 regulars
4 new characters first night.

I am 1/2 orc party leader me

Instigator is gnome. 2nd in command

New character is a ranger that has favoured enemy orc.

Flying over head is a dragon. North American continent by an ancient treaty (2,000 years) has a no attack ever clause with dragons. We are from Europe.

As party leader all regulars know we abide by the treaty.

A dragon is circling over head.

The gnome says kill it kill it kill it.

I say as party leader we do not under any circumstances attack dragons.

Gnome insist we attack.

New ranger say I do not listen to orcs. He is the only one who attacks.

Gnome goes invisible leaves party.
Out of game information he thought he could steal from the dragons lair. I was under the impression it was miles away.

New character misses a/c 28.

I d-door two 3 of the weaker members 40 feet away.

Dragon breath weapons the party.

Dragon lands demands the characters life for firing on him.

This where your decisions start to matter.

Will fill in rest no more the three rounds please before next installment. Your party leader.

denthor
2019-08-22, 11:12 AM
Your spell list

Magic missile three times
Shield
Ray of enfeeblement

2nd
Web
Spectral hand
Ghouls touch
See invisible

3rd
Ray of exhaustion
Vampiric touch twice
Displacement
Fly
4th
Black tentacles
D door used a second ddoor
Elemental body 1

5th
Teleport
Vampiric drain twice 5d6 magic resistance only 35 foot range no attack roll.

You have 40 foot movement

King of Nowhere
2019-08-22, 12:22 PM
tell the dragon the ranger is from outside and is not aware of the treaty, and plead for mercy.

if the dragon refuses, let the dragon kil the ranger.

that will teach the new player that actions have consequences. and seriously, you do NOT attack a dragon if you are not ready to fight it, and ABSOLUTELY you do NOT ENGAGE COMBAT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTY.

seriously, attacking an npc? that maybe can be forgiven. but disregarding the advice of a fellow player? when it's your first session with the new group and you do not understand the campaign world and he does? Picking conflict with another teammember? All serious red flags here. the player must be talked about, and the character has to face the consequences of his actions.

Gallowglass
2019-08-22, 12:26 PM
Party in a ruin city 10 of us.

6 regulars
4 new characters first night.

I am 1/2 orc party leader me

Instigator is gnome. 2nd in command

New character is a ranger that has favoured enemy orc.

Flying over head is a dragon. North American continent by an ancient treaty (2,000 years) has a no attack ever clause with dragons. We are from Europe.

As party leader all regulars know we abide by the treaty.

A dragon is circling over head.

The gnome says kill it kill it kill it.

I say as party leader we do not under any circumstances attack dragons.

Gnome insist we attack.

New ranger say I do not listen to orcs. He is the only one who attacks.

Gnome goes invisible leaves party.
Out of game information he thought he could steal from the dragons lair. I was under the impression it was miles away.

New character misses a/c 28.

I d-door two 3 of the weaker members 40 feet away.

Dragon breath weapons the party.

Dragon lands demands the characters life for firing on him.

This where your decisions start to matter.

Will fill in rest no more the three rounds please before next installment. Your party leader.


Not invite the player of the gnome and the player of the ranger back to the next session.

Problem solved.

FabulousFizban
2019-08-22, 12:30 PM
you should have hired Pete Carbuttle, halfling negotiator.

Brookshw
2019-08-22, 12:36 PM
Dragon lands demands the characters life for firing on him.

This where your decisions start to matter.


Demand that the as this matter is governed by treaty that the issue be turned over to the proper authority for review and that only penalties imposed by the same treaty may be applied.

Edit: 10 players? Ouch, that poor DM!

Particle_Man
2019-08-22, 01:53 PM
Kill the ranger and the gnome and beg for the dragon’s forgiveness.

denthor
2019-08-22, 02:17 PM
Not invite the player of the gnome and the player of the ranger back to the next session.

Problem solved.

Yes 1 never returned
the gnome met an end two months later (regular) been there longer me and I am at the 20 year mark.

Particle man your spot on for what happened. How do you get there?

It went down hill from where I left the story! Round by round

TheYell
2019-08-22, 02:47 PM
I am 1/2 orc party leader me

New character is a ranger that has favoured enemy orc.

Potential hazard right there, and he should not be allowed to RP it that he will not listen to the PC.

Retcon it away with that in mind or let him incur the death penalty.

Themrys
2019-08-22, 03:08 PM
Not invite the player of the gnome and the player of the ranger back to the next session.

Problem solved.

Best solution.

Solving outgame problems ingame doesn't really work. And those players are being intentionally disruptive.

FaerieGodfather
2019-08-22, 03:28 PM
The Ranger doesn't listen to orcs?

I don't risk the health and wealth of my friends to protect insubordinate ****ing morons. The dragon can have the Ranger, and all the Ranger's gear, and I will politely request to keep one sentimental item to return to the Ranger's grieving family. So, in my "three rounds", I make two Diplomacy checks.

If the Gnome is ever stupid enough to show his face again, he dies too.

edit: Also, as others have said... if this is an OOC problem it needs an OOC solution. Tell the two problem players to stop being a problem or they'll stop being players.

King of Nowhere
2019-08-22, 04:03 PM
guys, keep in mind that they were new players, not familiar with the table. they should be given a bit of leniency as first offenders. but only a bit, and only as first offenders. certainly none at the second offence.

and by the way, it seems by the OP comment that this actually happened many years ago?




edit: Also, as others have said... if this is an OOC problem it needs an OOC solution. Tell the two problem players to stop being a problem or they'll stop being players.

i like the twist of this phrase

Particle_Man
2019-08-22, 04:25 PM
Round one say “you heard the dragon! Kill the ranger! And someone find the gnome that egged the ranger on and kill him too!” (Does the party have a means of detecting invisibility? Does the dragon?). That was the free action. The rest is spent killing the ranger. Because a dragon not bound by the treaty can do a lot of damage to a lot of people, not just the party, but innocents otherwise protected by the treaty.

The other actions depend on how log it takes to kill the dragon and the gnome.

Then explain to the players about why this happened and how to prevent it from happening again with their next character’s.

denthor
2019-08-22, 04:38 PM
Months ago current campaign I can not kick anyone.

From comments here it appears I did the right thing.

Round 1. Free action apologize to dragon.
The ranger shoots me critical hit. Confirmed while I am speaking.

Initiative roll I win. Party scatters mostly. 2 of the other new players 1/2 orc fighters who I d-doored 3rd stays put advance beyond me close 80 of the 100 feet.

I cast web this forces a dex save of 17, also obscures me 50/50 miss chance.

Ranger makes save shoots me critical hit confirmed. I ask for the 50/50 dice go against me... I am pissed two crits.

I am 9th he 6th.

Round 2. Dismiss the web spell free action the the 1/2 orcs subdue only. (Yeah they did not listen). I cast and miss ray of enfeeblement.

1/2 orcs (first nighter) engage and attack archer ranger. Two hits did not know one was a barbarian rage. Lots of damage. Archer tries to run attack of opportunity he is down.

Ranger never came back. Told the dragon if you .can find the gnome eat her.

Dragon flies off.

The dragon had information for us we never received again.

I am trying to be C.G. according to my party I am failing.

Red Fel
2019-08-22, 08:48 PM
I am trying to be C.G. according to my party I am failing.

Your party can get stuffed.

I agree with those who talk about OOC problems and OOC solutions. This sounds like a lot of problems, not the least of which: Nobody wants to listen to you. So I'm going to go with a different tack entirely:

Why are you the leader?

I always get nervous when I hear somebody describe a party in terms of "and I'm the leader." I get nervous, because that's not a thing. Like, it's a thing in certain webcomics about TTRPGs - one in particular comes to mind - but in a general campaign? I don't recall a campaign where we had a "leader" and it wasn't just a player on a power trip. "Leader" was a situational term. When we're dealing with magic, the Wizard takes the lead. People, the face takes the lead. Murder, call in the murder expert. It was a moving target.

My point is this. In one sentence, you claim to be the leader. In the rest of the post, you make clear that nobody is following you. And, for that matter, that nobody wants to follow you. So, again: Why are you the leader?

Now, with respect to the idiots who attacked a dragon? I agree, let 'em die. You aren't Lawful Stupid, you don't need to throw yourself on a dragon-shaped grenade to save your party. And with respect to the people who want to debate your alignment? Announce that they are now Chaotic Evil - whether they are or aren't - and PvP them. If they don't like it, remind them that they don't get to decide your alignment, and reset to before you made them quite dead.

Except for the idiots who attacked a dragon. Feed them to a dragon.

And then reconsider why you're leading this band of merry idiots.

denthor
2019-08-22, 10:06 PM
Your party can get stuffed.

I agree with those who talk about OOC problems and OOC solutions. This sounds like a lot of problems, not the least of which: Nobody wants to listen to you. So I'm going to go with a different tack entirely:

Why are you the leader?

I always get nervous when I hear somebody describe a party in terms of "and I'm the leader." I get nervous, because that's not a thing. Like, it's a thing in certain webcomics about TTRPGs - one in particular comes to mind - but in a general campaign? I don't recall a campaign where we had a "leader" and it wasn't just a player on a power trip. "Leader" was a situational term. When we're dealing with magic, the Wizard takes the lead. People, the face takes the lead. Murder, call in the murder expert. It was a moving target.

My point is this. In one sentence, you claim to be the leader. In the rest of the post, you make clear that nobody is following you. And, for that matter, that nobody wants to follow you. So, again: Why are you the leader?

Now, with respect to the idiots who attacked a dragon? I agree, let 'em die. You aren't Lawful Stupid, you don't need to throw yourself on a dragon-shaped grenade to save your party. And with respect to the people who want to debate your alignment? Announce that they are now Chaotic Evil - whether they are or aren't - and PvP them. If they don't like it, remind them that they don't get to decide your alignment, and reset to before you made them quite dead.

Except for the idiots who attacked a dragon. Feed them to a dragon.

And then reconsider why you're leading this band of merry idiots.

Thank you for replying.

As to summoning correctly. I feel wrong when I do that. You have now given me permission??!!! Am I wrong to feel afraid?

Why am I the leader regular player. Two of the characters have 8 intelligence they play that intellect. The fourth regular is the gnome. Your right they do not listen. They want me to go Chaotic Evil stated many time at the table.


Did what I needed to do keep them all alive. The other reason they like to see the torment I go through keeping them alive. You would be proud of them for that.

Red Fel
2019-08-23, 08:18 AM
Thank you for replying.

As to summoning correctly. I feel wrong when I do that. You have now given me permission??!!! Am I wrong to feel afraid?

Nobody needs permission to summon me. That would defeat the purpose. Rather, summoning gives me permission.

You know. For things.


Why am I the leader regular player. Two of the characters have 8 intelligence they play that intellect. The fourth regular is the gnome. Your right they do not listen. They want me to go Chaotic Evil stated many time at the table.

So, basically, "I'm the leader because the rest of the team wants to play idiots. Also, they don't listen and want me to change my alignment."

This... doesn't sound fun, honestly. It sounds like they...


Did what I needed to do keep them all alive. The other reason they like to see the torment I go through keeping them alive. You would be proud of them for that.

This. It sounds like they are specifically messing with you.

I am not proud of them for that, honestly. It would be one thing if a character, in character, was slowly psychologically torturing another character. But as has now been mentioned several times, this isn't an in-character issue. This isn't the characters tormenting your character by forcing him to keep them alive despite all efforts to the contrary; this is the players tormenting you by forcing you to play your character in a particular way.

I can't speak for you. Maybe you enjoy that. I would not, and I while I get a kick out of characters who behave in an Evil fashion, I get no joy from players doing that.

So, let's sum up.
Your party members are idiots.
They are also suicidal.
They also try to mess with your alignment.
They do it specifically to mess with you. Not with your character, with you.
These are all out-of-character issues. They need to be resolved out of character. And honestly, if the problem is the entire rest of the table, or close to it, the solution isn't to kick those players out. As you said, it's not feasible anyway.

The solution, if you are unhappy and addressing it out of character does not work, is for you to walk away.

Obviously, if you're fine with the current state of affairs, it's a non-issue. (But if that's the case, why this thread?) Likewise, if you can talk it over out of character and they realize they're upsetting you, problem solved. But if talking it over doesn't fix the problem, you can either subject yourself to more suffering, or effectively sign your character over to them by just doing whatever they want, or walk away. Those are your options.

denthor
2019-08-23, 09:26 AM
Nobody needs permission to summon me. That would defeat the purpose. Rather, summoning gives me permission.

You know. For things.



So, basically, "I'm the leader because the rest of the team wants to play idiots. Also, they don't listen and want me to change my alignment."

This... doesn't sound fun, honestly. It sounds like they...



This. It sounds like they are specifically messing with you.

I am not proud of them for that, honestly. It would be one thing if a character, in character, was slowly psychologically torturing another character. But as has now been mentioned several times, this isn't an in-character issue. This isn't the characters tormenting your character by forcing him to keep them alive despite all efforts to the contrary; this is the players tormenting you by forcing you to play your character in a particular way.

I can't speak for you. Maybe you enjoy that. I would not, and I while I get a kick out of characters who behave in an Evil fashion, I get no joy from players doing that.

So, let's sum up.
Your party members are idiots.
They are also suicidal.
They also try to mess with your alignment.
They do it specifically to mess with you. Not with your character, with you.
These are all out-of-character issues. They need to be resolved out of character. And honestly, if the problem is the entire rest of the table, or close to it, the solution isn't to kick those players out. As you said, it's not feasible anyway.

The solution, if you are unhappy and addressing it out of character does not work, is for you to walk away.

Obviously, if you're fine with the current state of affairs, it's a non-issue. (But if that's the case, why this thread?) Likewise, if you can talk it over out of character and they realize they're upsetting you, problem solved. But if talking it over doesn't fix the problem, you can either subject yourself to more suffering, or effectively sign your character over to them by just doing whatever they want, or walk away. Those are your options.


Why this thread I was hoping for a round by round role play what to do from others.

What I got was summary execution of the player.

My way took longer but ended where you all pointed for it end. I wanted to do better.:sigh:

Upon reading the comments I find I did the best I could with the situation. Thank you all.

King of Nowhere
2019-08-23, 10:41 AM
Why this thread I was hoping for a round by round role play what to do from others.

What I got was summary execution of the player.

My way took longer but ended where you all pointed for it end. I wanted to do better.:sigh:

Upon reading the comments I find I did the best I could with the situation. Thank you all.

This reminds me of one of the many legends on the origin of chess:

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and found peace"

so it would become

"once a guy had fun in a roleplaying game, but he kicked several players from the group.
he asked the forum for advice, and the forum underlines how the other players were being asses.
by reading the forum, the guy realized he could not have had fun without kicking the problem players, and found peace"

Gallowglass
2019-08-23, 11:11 AM
This reminds me of one of the many legends on the origin of chess:

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and found peace"

so it would become

"once a guy had fun in a roleplaying game, but he kicked several players from the group.
he asked the forum for advice, and the forum underlines how the other players were being asses.
by reading the forum, the guy realized he could not have had fun without kicking the problem players, and found peace"



I kind of feel like the first one should have been

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and realized he shouldn't have started the battle."

KillianHawkeye
2019-08-23, 11:35 AM
I kind of feel like the first one should have been

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and realized he shouldn't have started the battle."

But... that doesn't help the King AT ALL! :smalleek:

King of Nowhere
2019-08-23, 11:45 AM
I kind of feel like the first one should have been

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and realized he shouldn't have started the battle."

the king didn't have such qualms about the thousands of commoners that died in the battle too.

I respect more the king that puts his family on the same level as the common people, than the king who will ask sacrifice of others but not of himself.

As for the obvious follow-up "the king realized we should all try to get along", that's too big an anacronysm.

The Library DM
2019-08-28, 02:24 PM
I kind of feel like the first one should have been

"once a king won a battle, but his son died fighting, and he was sad.
he asked a wise man for advice, and the wise man made the game of chess for him.
by playing chess, the king realized he could not have won the battle without losing his son, and realized he shouldn't have started the battle."

I note the story doesn’t say that the king started the battle— merely that he won it. Maybe the king was defending his people against a horrific invasion. The invaders started the battle, and the king fought as best he could, and though he won the battle, he lost his son. So night after night he relived the battle, trying to see how it could have been won differently...and so on from there. With that scenario, the king does find peace.