Cowardice

[Catullus64]

Of all the conceivable character flaws with which people imbue their RPG characters, it seems like cowardice is once of the least common. Even characters who identify as or are presented as cowards will still usually display a lot of level-headedness and competence when the arrows start flying.

I can think of several reasons why this is. Firstly, cowardice as a vice is very hard to make "cool" in the same way as arrogance, cruelty, or recklessness, and I think that very few people actually want to play contemptible characters. It's also a less plausible fault in a game revolving around risk and violence.

I think the biggest reason, however, is the interplay between the adventuring party and the gaming group. If, while roleplaying cowardice, you abandon your companions or freeze up in a way that gets a character killed, then players will have a tendency to blame you for it; after all, your roleplaying decision just cost them their own character.

I'm curious about others' experiences in roleplaying cowardice, reluctance, and fright of the non-mechanical kind. I'm currently playing a character with tendencies in that direction, and while things haven't gotten dire enough for it to really come out, I'm interested in ways to approach it. It seems a shame, because the harder it is to roleplay cowardice, the harder it is to have a character show genuine bravery.

[Aett_Thorn]

So if you want your character's flaw to be cowardice, you need to answer two questions for your character:

1) Why are the adventuring instead of being safe working as a simple laborer somewhere?

2) Why aren't they taking their first available option to stop adventuring?

Adventuring is dangerous. If you are doing that as a career choice but are a coward, it makes sense that you would stop after your first near-death experience. So why does your character keep going? If if they do keep going, is cowardice still their flaw? In addition to the intra-party issues that you note, it just gets rather tricky to keep the schtick going while constantly cheating death.

[Segev]

As has already been said, cowardice that causes you to make actively bad decisions during a major segment of the game, especially if it does so consistently, is just not compatible with a fun play experience. ESPECIALLY not for everyone else at the table, generally speaking.

It can work if you manage to build a character who can contribute significantly outside of combat and who isn't a load on the party during combat, but you have to be very careful how you build them.

You could RP a coward as spraying madly with arrows or spells and staying behind cover and playing very defensively, but that may come off as "level-headed once the arrows start flying" because the player is making deliberate tactical choices.

You don't RP a lout who ruins the party's carefully-crafted interactions in a game of social machinations. You don't play a coward who deliberately (in his concept) brings down the party's survival chances. It's just not good gaming, because it's counter to the rest of the team's fun.

[Catullus64]

So if you want your character's flaw to be cowardice, you need to answer two questions for your character:

1) Why are the adventuring instead of being safe working as a simple laborer somewhere?

2) Why aren't they taking their first available option to stop adventuring?

Adventuring is dangerous. If you are doing that as a career choice but are a coward, it makes sense that you would stop after your first near-death experience. So why does your character keep going? If if they do keep going, is cowardice still their flaw? In addition to the intra-party issues that you note, it just gets rather tricky to keep the schtick going while constantly cheating death.

I don't think those questions are as hard to answer as your rhetorical tone implies. A cowardly character can still have goals that require going on a quest. They can still be forced into an adventure by circumstance. Adventure isn't a career track that you apply for, it's a catchall term for a series of extraordinary events that occur in pursuit of a goal. And their cowardice doesn't have to be all-encompassing; they can decide to do something that clearly involves danger, like venturing into the Haunted Mines, but can still lose their wits when confronted with something dangerous.


Yes, a cowardly character requires more justification for their presence on an adventure than your typically bold hero types, but it's feasible enough that the other roleplaying problems surrounding the archetype are still worth trying to solve.

[Unoriginal]

Many adventurers intentionally made to be cowards go the "Cowardly Lion" road, aka they're fearful but when the chips are down they will try their best to brave those fears. Rincewind was fully prepared to fight the most powerful magic user on his world armed only with an half-brick in a sock, for example.

But it's also a fact I hear many stories about groups of PCs unintentionslly displaying actual cowardice, sometime without even realizing it, and I've seen it at actual tables.

A group that refuses to engage the bad guys without resting first because they aren't at full strength, regardless of the consequences taking this rest will have, for example, is a fine display of cowardice. I'm not talking about groups that got seriously hurt and are so spent there's no way they can win, or those who think they can't fight the bad guys head on and will instead trick them somehow. I'm talking about those that go "everyone is nearly at full HP and half the group has full ressources or close, but the Wizard and the Cleric only have half their spell slots, so we're resting 8 hours" or "we can't face them in optimal conditions, so the plan is to let the BBEG do whatever they want in their corner while we recuperate."

[Segev]

Many adventurers intentionally made to be cowards go the "Cowardly Lion" road, aka they're fearful but when the chips are down they will try their best to brave those fears.

But it's also a fact hear many stories about groups of PCs unintentionslly displaying actual cowardice, sometime without even realizing it, and I've seen it at actual tables.

A group that refuses to engage the bad guys without resting first because they aren't at full strength, regardless of the consequences taking this rest will have, for example, is a fine display of cowardice. I'm not talking about groups that got seriously hurt and are so spent there's no way they can win, or those who think they can't fight the bad guys head on and will instead trick them somehow. I'm talking about those that go "everyone is nearly at full HP and half the group has full ressources or close, but the Wizard and the Cleric only have half their spell slots, so we're resting 8 hours" or "we can't face them in optimal conditions, so the plan is to let the BBEG do whatever they want in their corner while we recuperate."

I do think that that is a problem of communication. I've had the exact opposite occur in a PFS module at a convention, once: an NPC we were trying to rescue was being chased down by bad guys, and we decided we couldn't take the time to rest overnight before chasing after in case something bad happened without us. We got into the final battle with about half our resources expended, and it was a real struggle. Turned out that the same scenario, with the bad guy and NPC in the same shape, would have been what we found if we'd rested for the time needed to recover spells and heal up and such.

If there are going to be consequences for stopping and resting, the DM needs to communicate those clearly. IF there aren't, he also needs to communicate that. That may require OOC info, or it may require merely giving a clear description of what reasonable expectations could be. "It's unlikely the bad guy will catch up with the NPC before tomorrow" is a signal to the players that their PCs have reason to believe they can take the time to rest. "The bad guy is only hours away from destroying Innocentville," is probably a signal that they can't dilly-dally just for a few extra spell slots.

[The_Jette]

Cowardice is a good pairing with acting in a bullyish manner for evil characters. When you have the advantage against your enemy, you'll push them around, murder their loved ones, etc. But, if they have the advantage you'll scream and cry and beg for mercy. Then, when their guard is down, stab them in the back with their own weapon, if you can get it. I rarely get to play an evil character, though...

[Aett_Thorn]

I don't think those questions are as hard to answer as your rhetorical tone implies. A cowardly character can still have goals that require going on a quest. They can still be forced into an adventure by circumstance. Adventure isn't a career track that you apply for, it's a catchall term for a series of extraordinary events that occur in pursuit of a goal. And their cowardice doesn't have to be all-encompassing; they can decide to do something that clearly involves danger, like venturing into the Haunted Mines, but can still lose their wits when confronted with something dangerous.


Yes, a cowardly character requires more justification for their presence on an adventure than your typically bold hero types, but it's feasible enough that the other roleplaying problems surrounding the archetype are still worth trying to solve.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that these are hard to answer, just that you need to have an answer to them. Sure, you have a greater goal that needs to be taken care of, so you choose a dangerous path. That works! But if your character is otherwise normal and a coward, it can cause problems.

[firelistener]

As DM, I always reward players that make an effort to have a well-developed character, but I won't tolerate a character that acts against the party and makes the game less fun for other players even if they are really well developed.

I've had plenty of players make cowardly characters, and it's rarely done well. Most often, they can't figure out why their character would be in combat at all. When done poorly, it's rare for other players or the DM to be very forgiving. I think a lot of experienced players avoid it because of that risk.

It can definitely be done, but it's just difficult.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always liked the idea of an Ancestral Guardian that was a coward. A Barbarian that only throws his weapons at the enemy and flees, while the ghosts of his people try to support his friends as a means of recompense for the cowardice of their descendant.

A cowardly barbarian that avoids melee combat, 100% efficiency.

[LumenPlacidum]

I find Warlock to be a great class for a cowardly character. You're adventuring because your Patron demands it of you. Ultimately, you're more afraid of what the Patron can do to you than what the monsters can.

You can totally play someone who isn't going to play combat optimally and still contribute to the table's fun. However, the DM has to know that you're not going to mechanically boost the party as much as you might be able to if you played differently. Having a fifth level character who hides behind a rock and who occasionally peeks out to cast Bless or Healing Word on party members is not contributing as much as many 5th level characters could, but they're not actually impairing the party's ability to survive! Besides, even if you do play it that way, it can be a hoot as long as the party always kind of expected that you'd turn tail and run away at some point.

I once had a PC who went unconscious in a nasty fight while on his mount. His party member, who was somewhat cowardly, and who recognized that the fight was going downhill, walked up, pushed my PC off his mount, mounted the horse, and used it to run away. I was annoyed at the time, but frankly it was a great way to convey a LOT of character to the rest of the party. In the end, we don't play D&D for the smorgasbord of combat, treasure, and experience that it sometimes is. We play for dramatic moments that we can all connect to and, usually, laugh about. Cowardice is gold for that.

[Corran]

Adventuring is dangerous. If you are doing that as a career choice but are a coward, it makes sense that you would stop after your first near-death experience. So why does your character keep going? If if they do keep going, is cowardice still their flaw? In addition to the intra-party issues that you note, it just gets rather tricky to keep the schtick going while constantly cheating death.
Easy answer, be a cleric. Clerics make excellent cowardly adventurers who have a harder time quitting just because of their calling. Particularly ones who worship a deity out of fear more than anything else.
Why am I into adventuring? The promise of easy coin and glory can justify the occasional thrill for most who choose this path. I wont deny that I think of these things, but I am not that shortsighted. I am doing it because it's good. Because it's the right thing to do. You see, the gods have a plan for us all, and if you are smart and good you dont fight it. And while it was one thing to hear the Word through the bishop when he first set me on that path, it was as if the Goddess Herself was speaking to me when I was saved and subsequently recruited by my current companions.

I dont have any near death experiences though. I leave those for my brave friends. They seem to ache for them actually. Mind you, I am doing my bit. You know how many times I've brought them back from death's door? Countless! Sometimes by making sure they wont accept any suicidal jobs in the first place. Who can tell if I am missinterpreting my augury on purpose anyway? We are doing heroic stuff, yes, but only those that wont get us/me killed, preferably those that pay well and in advance too. Most of the time at least, every now and then an exception has to be made. By Her grace, I am always well prepared for such occasions though. The boons of my deity are indeed quite unique when it comes to keeping myself safe. Half of everything is luck, but tempting fate by being unprepared is pure hubris, and hubris always invites misfortune.

There have been a few scary moments along the road, but it was in these moments where my faith was what really kept me going. Well, running, actually. Running and screaming to be precise. No no, it's not what you think. Running while screaming ''TYMORA SAVE US'' is one of my faith's oldest rituals, saved only for when you are in real trouble. You better understand that buddy, if you want healing to keep coming your way that is.

Though I think that the scary stuff are for the most part behind us now. We generated enough buzz along the way, so that our little adventuring group was noticed by actual royalty. A prince has us on the payroll now. Even more than that, a prince who happens to be a fellow worshiper. How scary can the problems of a petty kingdom actually be in a time of peace when compared to what we've already faced? This is a reward. Fortune favors the bold indeed. Even a knighthood could be on the cards if we do our part well enough. Sir Robin. I have to admit, I like the sound of that.

Robin Bartcland, priest of Tymora
The first step is always the difficult one. Getting initiated. After that you learn that you must just play your part. Nothing difficult about that. Playing your part is always the safe choice; the smart choice. Always. Know what's really scary though? Failing to do so. Thinking that nothing bad will happen to you if you turn your back to Her. I didn't understand what I had done wrong to end up being caught by slavers. I didn't understand how I had offended Her when I was rescued only to be recruited by some self proclaimed heroes who made it their business to solve the problems of every little town and village in the frontier. I was a fool to mistake an easy path paved wide open for me for misfortune. But I was smart enough to follow it through, right to the point where Her plan for me was eventually revealed.

Robin Bartcland, faithful servant and black finger to Beshaba.

Though there are many other possibilities. Being more greedy than cowardly could bean answer to why you keep going. Running away from something could also be why you keep doing it, as adventuring means that you are constantly on the move, and ideally with people who can protect you if it comes to that. Trying to live up to the expectations of your family of brave heroes could make a coward character a little more amusing too. Plenty of justifications for a cowardly character to keep going.

[Sigreid]

From people I know who have seen combat (I never have), it's not really that uncommon to come across someone who is terrified to near paralysis until the first shot is fired in a battle and then becomes cool and efficient. For them, the anticipation of danger is worse than the danger.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I roleplayed a character with PTSD regarding dragons and dark magic. He didn't like shadowy places and made any excuse he could not to face dragons. He ran into a hag early on in the adventure and clammed up, doing everything he could to resolve the situation quickly without having to fight her.

The trick was intentionally making choices that weren't necessarily in my best interest without directly conflicting with the party. I wanted nothing to do with that hag, but when the party was insistent, I went along anyway and just roleplayed my failing courage. And sometimes it worked in our favor- we heard a dragon far off and I quickly voiced concerns about approaching it at all, which was an easy excuse for the more "brave" characters to make the tactical decision not to face it. Later it turned out that said-dragon was above our CR and quite dangerous to us in that situation.

This is the thing to remember about roleplaying negative traits in general; no matter what they are, you're still always there for the rest of the party. You're a loner except when it behooves the party to be together, you're a sociopath unless it would get the party in trouble, and you're a coward unless the party needs you to stand tall. You can work this into your narrative, too, showing your growth as a character. Perhaps you start as a coward but eventually learn to be brave through the trials you face with your friends.

[Forechosen]

One of my favourite characters I ever made was an extremely cowardly Artificer (Alchemist, basically a Plague Doctor) - she only 'did adventuring' because her thirst for more scientific knowledge (only just) overcame her fear of being out in the real world and not stuck in her laboratory.

It was honestly such a blast to play - always erring on the side of caution, running away (or at least hiding) at the first sign of real trouble, trying to plan things to the nth degree - basically not being 'a hero' at all, just tagging along. It was such a different attitude to the usual run-of-the-mill adventurer. The other characters in the party were always trying to bolster her confidence, though she was a bit of a snarky know-it-all, so it wasn't usually successful.

I'm not sure I'd play a character like that amongst players who weren't very good friends, because frankly those attributes can come across as pretty annoying - but it absolutely worked for us, that character group was one of the longest we've had.

[Devils_Advocate]

A trait doesn't have to be only positive or negative. Maybe the cowardly character is the only reasonably prepared and cautious one, while the brave members of the party are fairly reckless.


If there are going to be consequences for stopping and resting, the DM needs to communicate those clearly. IF there aren't, he also needs to communicate that.
Well, the DM should clearly communicate everything that the DM wants to be clear. But I don't think that it's never appropriate for the players to face a hard choice about which risk to take. Always having sufficient information for there to be an obviously correct course of action seems like it would make things a bit boring, frankly.

[Tanarii]

Make a ranged character with Con 8. Excessive caution will come naturally.

[Vulryn]

There are reasonable ways to play a coward. But for an adventuring party, there is no reason to keep a character around who will not pull his own weight, or worse abandons his companions when push comes to shove. If playing a coward means „I drop my weapons and hide“. While in-character for that character, It might not be so for the party. His cowardice is a liability, a hazard.

Except if the party has a deathwish, of course.

[Elbeyon]

If your character doesn't help as much in combat, ask the dm to make combat easier and agree to be less than helpful. Figure out something that works for everyone. If your character is comlpetely worthless, the dm may want to ignore they exist and the character can skip every combat turn. It'd basically be planning minus one characters for every combat. If the group is large enough, a smaller combat group could even help the dm.

[Nagog]

I'd make it a self-imposed Wisdom save. If they succeed, they keep their cool, and while they don't take risky actions or put themselves in harm's way, they do make themselves useful. If they fail, roll on a table to see how they act, with freezing/fleeing being major margins of the table, but other acts could be on there as well, like crying (Disadvantage on perception checks perhaps?), screaming (Disadvantage on stealth), hiding, and other such actions manifesting as direct acts of fear.

If you're afraid of the other players blaming you for roleplaying in a way that is detrimental to the party, shift that blame to the dice.

[Elbeyon]

If you're afraid of the other players blaming you for roleplaying in a way that is detrimental to the party, shift that blame to the dice.I doubt many players would fall for such a trick. The player chose to make a coward. They chose to make the table or ask for the table. The player hasn't received ​some random character during a one shot. They are responsible for their character and the player trying to blame the character likely will not fly.

Why would players be mad about being in a party with a coward? Cause, the coward is more likely to get their character killed and ruin their fun. If a player is going to play dead weight, it is probably best for the dm to adjust and make the game easier. To realize that the coward is not a competent fighter.

[Sandeman]

Once the rest of the party understands that they have a coward in the group, you are likely to get thrown out.

On one occasion, we had a PC in the party who was always behaving like an a-hole to the other charachters. The party was down in Hell during an adventure and the problem child PC got turned into stone. The rest of the party decided to leave him there instead of using a scroll to cure him.

[Christian]

Compare and contrast the characters of Jonathan Carnahan as portrayed by John Hannah in 1999's The Mummy and ... the same character portrayed by the same actor in 2001's The Mummy Returns. The former character is clearly portrayed as a physical coward--he constantly complains about the dangers the other characters are embracing, and is consistently inclined to run away from trouble rather than towards it. Yet, in the climax, when staying alive requires him to stay calm and collected, he picks the pocket of a mummy lord while it is strangling him. After it drops him to chase after the main hero, he gets shakily to his feet, holds up the MacGuffin he lifted, and proudly announces: "Did I panic? No, I did not." This guy can be in my adventuring party any day of the week, cowardice be damned.

Then, the alleged same character leads off his first action sequence in the sequel with the embarrassing spectacle of his shaking hands breaking off the key in the ignition of his car as he frantically tries to start it before the half dozen mummies chasing him, who aren't even in sight yet, can catch up. That guy in an adventuring party causes TPKs. Don't be that guy.

(Apologies to anyone who is upset by the lack of spoiler tags. Twenty years is past my cutoff for those.)

[Pex]

Compare and contrast the characters of Jonathan Carnahan as portrayed by John Hannah in 1999's The Mummy and ... the same character portrayed by the same actor in 2001's The Mummy Returns. The former character is clearly portrayed as a physical coward--he constantly complains about the dangers the other characters are embracing, and is consistently inclined to run away from trouble rather than towards it. Yet, in the climax, when staying alive requires him to stay calm and collected, he picks the pocket of a mummy lord while it is strangling him. After it drops him to chase after the main hero, he gets shakily to his feet, holds up the MacGuffin he lifted, and proudly announces: "Did I panic? No, I did not." This guy can be in my adventuring party any day of the week, cowardice be damned.

Then, the alleged same character leads off his first action sequence in the sequel with the embarrassing spectacle of his shaking hands breaking off the key in the ignition of his car as he frantically tries to start it before the half dozen mummies chasing him, who aren't even in sight yet, can catch up. That guy in an adventuring party causes TPKs. Don't be that guy.

(Apologies to anyone who is upset by the lack of spoiler tags. Twenty years is past my cutoff for those.)

I'm not upset about the lack of spoiler tags. I'm upset you reminded me those movies are twenty years old!

[hifidelity2]

For anyone of a certain age (and from the UK) then Vila Restal from the 70's TV series Blakes 7

He was a coward BUT understood that at times in order to save himself he had top help the party. However he was always happy for one of the other to be in the front andf take a major risk.

The reason he did not leave the party was that he was more afraid of the people chasing him and never found a way to get away and hide

[KorvinStarmast]

Cowardice: it's a crap play style unless the entire table is good with the one player not being a (reasonably) bold adventurer. For a story being written, the coward can be wedged in via plot armor to have a role, but in an RPG built like D&D 5e, it violates the premise of why the PC is adventuring in the first place.

We have a group with a bard who plays in a very cowardly style - turns invisible so that the enemy won't see him before he thinks to cast a buff spell on an ally, for example. Runs away at the drop of a hat after initiative is rolled.

Quite frankly, if there weren't six PCs in the group, I'd probably have a word with him about being a complete shirt as a team player, but we have enough depth to where it's not worth arguing about.

My character heals him last, or, if resources run short, his is the PC that doesn't get healed. If he goes to 0 HP, I let him lie there unless I think a monster will hit him while he's making death saves. I still need him up and moving to be a potential target/actor for the next encounter ...

Yeah, that's me, through my player, expressing a bit of OOC and IC frustration with that characterization. (If we were all really our characters, and we were out doing deadly stuff on a continual basis, I can guarantee you he'd be left in the next tavern before we left town. But we aren't really the PCs, we are playing a game).

He still does cool stuff now and again, because he's a lore bard and they have cool stuff that they can do.
Also, I have been teaching him the value of using BI for Cutting Words, and we all still have fun.

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, like a lot of people in the thread, Cowardice is one of those RP traits that can quickly be an out-of-game problem. Another one I put on that list is Extreme Pacifism.

And, I have plenty of examples of Cowardice being. just... really ****ty.

1) A game I was Going I had a new player. She wanted to be a Gnome Wizard. She eventually messed with an Arcane Engine and was transformed into a being of pure magical energy. Her go to move during literally every combat of a two year campaign? Hide in the bag of Holding until it was over. She also had a weird pacifism thing where she didn't mind psychically rending people's minds into tatters, but wouldn't hurt their body.

But, as one person said, I basically just started not counting her for combats. She wasn't relied on by the party for anything, and the frustration mounted as the game continued and she just never pulled her weight unless forced to by me.


2) One of my first games as a player, Dark Sun 4e. We were captured, seemingly by a sorcerer-king and a my character's nemesis, his former owner. This is a combo of cowardice and poor communication. But, my character was in an anti-magi cell, and had four guards who were level equivalent come into his cell to drag him to be killed. There were other guards around the room. Most of the party broke through the walls of their cells.... into a single cell to play poker, because they weren't going to try and escape and anger the Sorcerer-King. Only one party member tried to help me as my character was beaten unconscious and dragged from the cells to be sacrificed. Eventually the DM had to release a poison gas into the room to force them to leave.

Oh, the guards around the room? Fake minions. The sorcerer-King? A fake. The only real threats in the entire scenario were my nemesis (who I missed fighting because I was beaten unconscious and killed) and the guards who had been sent to collect me. The DM expected them to investigate and figure it out, or at least break out and try and help me, there companion for the last year plus of the game, or for my character to run out into the main room to fight ALL the guards and figure out they were fakes.


Actually, that same game had us fighting an evil Sorcerer-King spirit and we had a character who didn't want to anger the guy trying to kill us... so he spent the entire fight picking up coins from the ground instead of helping.



It is just too easy for "cowardice" to turn into abandoning your companions to die, and DnD is a team game. If you are hurting the team consistently, then it is going to cause resentment. Even a single act of abandoning a teammate to die can sour things for an entire group, even years later.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, that's me, through my player, expressing a bit of OOC and IC frustration with that characterization. (If we were all really our characters, and we were out doing deadly stuff on a continual basis, I can guarantee you he'd be left in the next tavern before we left town. But we aren't really the PCs, we are playing a game).
I don't get this. I'd certainly inform any player of a liability coward that the party was leaving their character behind, they need to roll a new one.

The Criminal background has a Flaw that I consider the worst one in the PHB, "I turn tail and run when things look bad." That character should be immediately abandoned by the party after the first instance. As in, you could probably make a CE with any combination of PHB ideal and flaw that's not as bad.

And now I know how I'm wasting my morning ... :smallamused:

[Trask]

Sometimes I think my PCs could use a small dosage of cowardice if you know what I'm saying. These guys never run away from anything, even when they really, really should, just because no one wants to be the first one to run.

[Unoriginal]

As in, you could probably make a CE with any combination of PHB ideal and flaw that's not as bad.

And now I know how I'm wasting my morning ... :smallamused:

I would love to see the results. You should make a thread about it.

In any case, cowardice like chaotic evil share something: they're fine as long as the character is still helping the team like everyone else (and by implication aren't hindering it either).

[elyktsorb]

Cowardly characters are boring..

Paranoid characters on the other hand..

[Porcupinata]

So if you want your character's flaw to be cowardice, you need to answer two questions for your character:

1) Why are the adventuring instead of being safe working as a simple laborer somewhere?

2) Why aren't they taking their first available option to stop adventuring?

Adventuring is dangerous. If you are doing that as a career choice but are a coward, it makes sense that you would stop after your first near-death experience. So why does your character keep going? If if they do keep going, is cowardice still their flaw? In addition to the intra-party issues that you note, it just gets rather tricky to keep the schtick going while constantly cheating death.

1) Because my warlock patron demands it!

2) See (1)

The trick to effectively playing a coward without being a liability to the party to the extent that in-character they kick you out (and out-of-character they ask you to make a new PC) is that you don't do things like running away from combat. You fight, reluctantly and roleplaying that you're scared, but you fight nonetheless. Similarly, you'll be scared to go into unknown area in case there are traps or ambushes, but that doesn't mean you won't do it. You'll just do it tentatively and nervously.

You can easily roleplay being a coward and being scared without spoiling the game for everyone else, as long as your character still supports the party and whatever mission you're on and that any roleplayed complaining or reluctance isn't overdone to the point that it annoys the other players.

[Corran]

I don't get this. I'd certainly inform any player of a liability coward that the party was leaving their character behind, they need to roll a new one.

The Criminal background has a Flaw that I consider the worst one in the PHB, "I turn tail and run when things look bad." That character should be immediately abandoned by the party after the first instance. As in, you could probably make a CE with any combination of PHB ideal and flaw that's not as bad.

And now I know how I'm wasting my morning ... :smallamused:
''When things look bad'' is subject to interpretation, so the flaw will only be as bad as the player in question makes it to be really. Unless you take issue with fleeing under any circumstances of course. ''I'd rather die than let any of you behind'' is great for defining a character, even for defining a whole group of characters, but such loyalty may be hard to find when you are also looking for a certain minimum skill level. By which I mean that I dont find it unrealistic for a group of adventurers to be put together where not everyone will risk everything for one another. Though it's definitely something you could be asking about at session 0, probably suggesting that the players establish a certain kind of relationship between their pc's, that would prevent something like this from happening ever.

[Sorinth]

1) Because my warlock patron demands it!

2) See (1)

The trick to effectively playing a coward without being a liability to the party to the extent that in-character they kick you out (and out-of-character they ask you to make a new PC) is that you don't do things like running away from combat. You fight, reluctantly and roleplaying that you're scared, but you fight nonetheless. Similarly, you'll be scared to go into unknown area in case there are traps or ambushes, but that doesn't mean you won't do it. You'll just do it tentatively and nervously.

You can easily roleplay being a coward and being scared without spoiling the game for everyone else, as long as your character still supports the party and whatever mission you're on and that any roleplayed complaining or reluctance isn't overdone to the point that it annoys the other players.

Isn't overcoming your fear and doing the thing even though it's super scary pretty much the definition of being brave?

[Tanarii]

''When things look bad'' is subject to interpretation, so the flaw will only be as bad as the player in question makes it to be really. Unless you take issue with fleeing under any circumstances of course. ''I'd rather die than let any of you behind'' is great for defining a character, even for defining a whole group of characters, but such loyalty may be hard to find when you are also looking for a certain minimum skill level. By which I mean that I dont find it unrealistic for a group of adventurers to be put together where not everyone will risk everything for one another. Though it's definitely something you could be asking about at session 0, probably suggesting that the players establish a certain kind of relationship between their pc's, that would prevent something like this from happening ever.
It may be unrealistic, but AFAICT it's the default expectation for the vast majority of players.

As in if someone plays a character that way, they're likely to be considered a "problem player", not a problem character.

I completely agree it can be read differently, but I don't think that's the reading most players will get from it at first read, and I do think that "watering it down" like that is exactly the OPs point.

[Osuniev]

In the campaign I just finished (lvl 1 to 20, over 3 and a half years...), there was a High Elf Sea Sorcerer which was arrogant and a coward.

He had CON 8 and WIS 10 at the start of the campaign (we rolled 3d6 in order, with only one re-roll), so the cowardice was, often, justified. He started the first game with 5 HP and AC13...

He would always spend the first turn of combat casting Fly, or Invisibility, or taking cover, or using the Broom of Flying... Anything to feel safer.

He experienced some character growth and became less craven (when he got Liquid Defence wich increased a lot his durability).

[Catullus64]

I also find it interesting that the group difficulties of a cowardly character aren't really a thing when the decision is taken out of the individual player's hands. Consider two scenarios:

The party is fighting a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and the Cleric gets knocked out. Nobody else is nearby to help him except the Fighter. The character playing the Fighter decides that his fear takes control of him in this moment; he refuses to get any closer to the beast, even to save his comrade's life. The Cleric is devoured and dies.

A different scenario:

The party is fighting an adult Dragon, and the Cleric gets knocked out. Nobody else is nearby to help him except the Fighter. The Fighter still hasn't succeeded on his save against the Dragon's Frightful Presence, so he can't get any closer to help. The Cleric is devoured and dies.

I don't think that in the second scenario, anyone would blame the Fighter's player for what happened, because even though what is happening in the fiction of the game is near identical, everyone knows that the player couldn't have done much else.

Thinking about the two scenarios is part of what makes me wish that Frightful Presence was more prolific, or that there were other, standardized ways for the Frightened condition to take place outside of magic. A character's inability to control his fear could still be a very real and impactful element of the story, while shifting blame for the event from the player to the dice. (Either that, or everyone would just keep rolling Halflings.)

[Segev]

I also find it interesting that the group difficulties of a cowardly character aren't really a thing when the decision is taken out of the individual player's hands. Consider two scenarios:

The party is fighting a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and the Cleric gets knocked out. Nobody else is nearby to help him except the Fighter. The character playing the Fighter decides that his fear takes control of him in this moment; he refuses to get any closer to the beast, even to save his comrade's life. The Cleric is devoured and dies.

A different scenario:

The party is fighting an adult Dragon, and the Cleric gets knocked out. Nobody else is nearby to help him except the Fighter. The Fighter still hasn't succeeded on his save against the Dragon's Frightful Presence, so he can't get any closer to help. The Cleric is devoured and dies.

I don't think that in the second scenario, anyone would blame the Fighter's player for what happened, because even though what is happening in the fiction of the game is near identical, everyone knows that the player couldn't have done much else.

Thinking about the two scenarios is part of what makes me wish that Frightful Presence was more prolific, or that there were other, standardized ways for the Frightened condition to take place outside of magic. A character's inability to control his fear could still be a very real and impactful element of the story, while shifting blame for the event from the player to the dice. (Either that, or everyone would just keep rolling Halflings.)

It's for the same reason that these two scenarios have different blame placed on the player:

The BBEG offers wealth and power to the PCs if they'll join him. Everyone except the paladin is locked down or tied up in some fashion. The shifty rogue assassin PC has just slipped his bonds, unbeknownst to anybody else. His player thinks joining the BBEG is the kind of thing his sneaky, evil character would do, and he gets Surprise on everybody by attacking immediately, using full Assassinate on the paladin complete with knock-out poison and whatever other tricks he might have. Even if the Paladin survives this hit, he's within killing range of the BBEG's next action.
The BBEG casts dominate person upcast to cover the party when he has everyone but the paladin tied up or locked down. The shifty rogue assassin PC had just slipped his bonds, unbeknownst to anybody else, but he also is the only one to fail the saving throw. The Paladin is speaking defiance and threatening the BBEG, who (slightly panicked) orders the PCs whom he believes to still be tied up to kill the paladin. The rogue fails any and all saves granted for "against his nature" etc. etc. and, surprising even the BBEG, does a full assassinate on the Paladin, letting the BBEG finish him off with the BBEG's next action.

Replace any behavior that is considered anti-party bad form by a player with a mind-control effect imposed by DM-controlled creatures, and nobody blames the player of the character who was whammied into it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Make a ranged character with Con 8. Excessive caution will come naturally. *chuckle*

I don't get this. I'd certainly inform any player of a liability coward that the party was leaving their character behind, they need to roll a new one. We play on line, we've all known each other since high school, (70's) and keeping the group together is more important than getting into each other's business on how we play our characters. That's why nothing further is done. :smallsmile:

Cowardly characters are boring..

Paranoid characters on the other hand.. That's a nice way to put it.

[Corran]

It may be unrealistic, but AFAICT it's the default expectation for the vast majority of players.

As in if someone plays a character that way, they're likely to be considered a "problem player", not a problem character.

I completely agree it can be read differently, but I don't think that's the reading most players will get from it at first read, and I do think that "watering it down" like that is exactly the OPs point.
Ok, so leaving aside the occasional troll (for lack of a better term) that will have their character act stupidly cowardly every time just because it's hillarious -and I think it's fair to say that in this case the cowardice is just the means of the problem, and not the cause, because a player with this mentality would find an excuse to create a problem with other types of characters- what do we have left?

What's left is players who try to play to their character's traits by bringing them up constantly as if nothing else exists to characterize their pc. And that's annoying, no matter what the trait is. Consider a brave character taken to that extreme. They can be equally annoying. ''What, a dragon you say has taken residence to the abandoned keep in the cliffs? And you've heard rumors that a goblin army has also set camp in the mines under the castle? I am NOT afraid! Let's go everyone!'', said the 3rd level paladin Richard the Lionheart. Such singularly defined characters usually end up being remembered as stupid and annoying, if being remembered at all. Of couse you have to water down your flaws, ideals and bonds. But not because some of these can be problematic (you deal with what could be problematic differently), but because you've got to end up with a believable character.

Coward characters remind me a lot of characters with an extensive backstory and/or with very specific goals. Just like the latter might have to be convinced for participating in any kind of adventure that derails from accomplishing their own personal goals, so do coward characters might have to be convinced or tricked to join adventures that may sound too perilous to them. That's neither good or bad. That's a roleplaying opportunity that can be used in a way that's enjoyable, or in a way that's annoying (spending an hour trying to convince the coward to join does not sound like fun, even if the attempt ends up being successful). Coward on its own doesn't work (though generally I dont think that characters identified almost singularly by one trait work either). Coward and easily convinced can work, so can coward and greedy, or coward and desperate, or any such other combinations.

Combat behaviour is easy to justify as long as you avoid difficult combinations (generally cowardice and melee fighting).

[Segev]

You can play a coward in flavor who still uses his abilities to contribute, even doing so with tactical acumen. Sure, the IC explanation is luck and panicked flailing happening to work out, but it can work.

Maybe you're just a little trigger-happy with that fireball or you're screaming "GET AWAY GET AWAY AAAAAAAH!" as you blast the goblins with a burning hands, but you're still using your actions well in game terms.

[Stabbey]

The trick to effectively playing a coward without being a liability to the party to the extent that in-character they kick you out (and out-of-character they ask you to make a new PC) is that you don't do things like running away from combat. You fight, reluctantly and roleplaying that you're scared, but you fight nonetheless. Similarly, you'll be scared to go into unknown area in case there are traps or ambushes, but that doesn't mean you won't do it. You'll just do it tentatively and nervously.

You can easily roleplay being a coward and being scared without spoiling the game for everyone else, as long as your character still supports the party and whatever mission you're on and that any roleplayed complaining or reluctance isn't overdone to the point that it annoys the other players.

This, exactly.

I've got an character concept for a Halfling who dreamed of being a hero, when his local community was under imminent threat from an invading army, was the first to volunteer to fight, but when the battle came, the terror was overwhelming and he fled (mechanically, that would be rolling double 2's on the saving throw for fear). That ended up costing the life of someone he cared about, and he learned that guilt is even worse than fear.

So he's going to be nervous and fearful, and still ineffective at fighting in melee (which is fine because he became a wizard (school of abjuration)), but he's not going to save his own skin at the expense of everyone else.

[Jamesps]

Cowardice, like all flaws, exists in degrees. I play cowardly characters all the time, but they're "soft" cowards. They're not afraid of combat persay, but rather they don't want to take damage or get hit so they use tactics that minimize or eliminate the possibility of taking damage or getting hit. Sometimes this means they use excellent tactics, other times it means they use selfish tactics and encourage other characters to take the risks (encourage, not demand).

Just like there's a difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic stupid, there's a difference between coward and craven.

[Pex]

In the campaign I just finished (lvl 1 to 20, over 3 and a half years...), there was a High Elf Sea Sorcerer which was arrogant and a coward.

He had CON 8 and WIS 10 at the start of the campaign (we rolled 3d6 in order, with only one re-roll), so the cowardice was, often, justified. He started the first game with 5 HP and AC13...

He would always spend the first turn of combat casting Fly, or Invisibility, or taking cover, or using the Broom of Flying... Anything to feel safer.

He experienced some character growth and became less craven (when he got Liquid Defence wich increased a lot his durability).

I may be bothered a little, but as long as despite a character's first turn in combat always be a defensive measure the player contributes meaningfully from round 2 I can be ok with it. Fly away to be out of melee then range attacks/buffs/area control. Be invisible to move to a safe distance then range attacks/buffs/area control.

[Danielqueue1]

there's a difference between coward and craven.

This^.

A cowardly character can be difficult to play well, and people often play them poorly. But my experience with people who have played them well is that mechanically they play like most squishy ranged characters but the way it's described is way different.

"I shoot the shaman, then move over here to gain cover from the savage spearmen. Also I am out of their movement range so I drop prone giving them disadvantage as well." Becomes, "[character name] shoots the shaman, then seeing the angry guys with spears lets out an 'eep!' And dives for the nearest cover."

Same mechanical effect, one is a calm tactician, the other a coward, with no negative effect on the party.

This can also lead into party decisions.
Noble: these guards don't know that they are protecting that traitor, we should find another way around to not spill unnecessary blood.
Tactician: we could take them all, but no doubt one of them would raise the alarm, and the element of surprise is the best weapon we have, lets find another way around.
Coward: uh... that's, that's a lot of guards, maybe we should go around, maybe there's some other way, or maybe we could reason with them?

Same recommendation, same effect, one of them is a coward, no party members are put at additional risk.
Cowardice itself is not grounds for kicking a character out of a party. But poorly handled or done to the extremes, it can become what several people have described wanting to kick out of their groups.

[Chaosmancer]

Sometimes I think my PCs could use a small dosage of cowardice if you know what I'm saying. These guys never run away from anything, even when they really, really should, just because no one wants to be the first one to run.

I fully get that and I would probably allow table talk in those sort of instances, let the party agree to run as a unit, and then it isn't an issue at all.

The only issue with running, or just standing by while a PC gets murdered is that it immediately divides the party. If you run, everyone knows you don't have their back. If they abandon you, you know they don't have your back. And that is so toxic to the game that it corrodes everything. But, allowing the players to discuss and agree "guys, we all need to run" is perfectly fine.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




''When things look bad'' is subject to interpretation, so the flaw will only be as bad as the player in question makes it to be really. Unless you take issue with fleeing under any circumstances of course. ''I'd rather die than let any of you behind'' is great for defining a character, even for defining a whole group of characters, but such loyalty may be hard to find when you are also looking for a certain minimum skill level. By which I mean that I dont find it unrealistic for a group of adventurers to be put together where not everyone will risk everything for one another. Though it's definitely something you could be asking about at session 0, probably suggesting that the players establish a certain kind of relationship between their pc's, that would prevent something like this from happening ever.

See, the problem is that the worse the situation is, the more devastating it is to run.

Actually, running away when it isn't a dire situation is better than running away when it is one. Running from the guards when the party is going to be held in jail and given a stern talking to is better than running away when the Lich King starts going out to murder them and seal their souls in eternal torment.

One is annoying, the other can devastate the party and lead to really harsh feelings. Especially if the group is fairly sure that if they had all been pulling their weight, they could have survived.




Ok, so leaving aside the occasional troll (for lack of a better term) that will have their character act stupidly cowardly every time just because it's hillarious -and I think it's fair to say that in this case the cowardice is just the means of the problem, and not the cause, because a player with this mentality would find an excuse to create a problem with other types of characters- what do we have left?

What's left is players who try to play to their character's traits by bringing them up constantly as if nothing else exists to characterize their pc. And that's annoying, no matter what the trait is. Consider a brave character taken to that extreme. They can be equally annoying. ''What, a dragon you say has taken residence to the abandoned keep in the cliffs? And you've heard rumors that a goblin army has also set camp in the mines under the castle? I am NOT afraid! Let's go everyone!'', said the 3rd level paladin Richard the Lionheart. Such singularly defined characters usually end up being remembered as stupid and annoying, if being remembered at all. Of couse you have to water down your flaws, ideals and bonds. But not because some of these can be problematic (you deal with what could be problematic differently), but because you've got to end up with a believable character.

Coward characters remind me a lot of characters with an extensive backstory and/or with very specific goals. Just like the latter might have to be convinced for participating in any kind of adventure that derails from accomplishing their own personal goals, so do coward characters might have to be convinced or tricked to join adventures that may sound too perilous to them. That's neither good or bad. That's a roleplaying opportunity that can be used in a way that's enjoyable, or in a way that's annoying (spending an hour trying to convince the coward to join does not sound like fun, even if the attempt ends up being successful). Coward on its own doesn't work (though generally I dont think that characters identified almost singularly by one trait work either). Coward and easily convinced can work, so can coward and greedy, or coward and desperate, or any such other combinations.

Combat behaviour is easy to justify as long as you avoid difficult combinations (generally cowardice and melee fighting).

see, you are changing the nature of the problem. A cowardly wizard who stands back and throws magic at the problem isn't the type of "coward" that we are talking about. We've given a few examples of how to make "coward" work but still act in accordance with the rest of the party.

The issue isn't "Coward who is convinced to follow the party and still contributes to the mission" it is "Things got dangerous, time to abandon the party and save my own skin". So, no one disagrees with you that "coward + reason to keep going" can't work. It totally can, but that is circumventing the issue we are talking about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This^.

A cowardly character can be difficult to play well, and people often play them poorly. But my experience with people who have played them well is that mechanically they play like most squishy ranged characters but the way it's described is way different.

"I shoot the shaman, then move over here to gain cover from the savage spearmen. Also I am out of their movement range so I drop prone giving them disadvantage as well." Becomes, "[character name] shoots the shaman, then seeing the angry guys with spears lets out an 'eep!' And dives for the nearest cover."

Same mechanical effect, one is a calm tactician, the other a coward, with no negative effect on the party.

This can also lead into party decisions.
Noble: these guards don't know that they are protecting that traitor, we should find another way around to not spill unnecessary blood.
Tactician: we could take them all, but no doubt one of them would raise the alarm, and the element of surprise is the best weapon we have, lets find another way around.
Coward: uh... that's, that's a lot of guards, maybe we should go around, maybe there's some other way, or maybe we could reason with them?

Same recommendation, same effect, one of them is a coward, no party members are put at additional risk.
Cowardice itself is not grounds for kicking a character out of a party. But poorly handled or done to the extremes, it can become what several people have described wanting to kick out of their groups.


100% agree.

And, it is true that any trait can be taken this way. I once had a party who was offered their "heart's desire" by an Aboleth. One guy had literally done nothing but seek out money (this was his second or third character, and he hadn't done much except go to job boards to make money) so I had the Aboleth offer him a chest of platinum coins.

He accepted, and started serving as the Aboleth's bodyguard and made a new character. Literally, his greed was his only defining trait.

I think there is a caveat though. I think that the "does the same thing, but with a different flavor" works best if you let the rest of the party know. I believe in full communication with your fellow players, and letting them know what you are doing prevents misunderstandings. And, it isn't like knowing lessens the fun at all.

[Corran]

See, the problem is that the worse the situation is, the more devastating it is to run.

Actually, running away when it isn't a dire situation is better than running away when it is one. Running from the guards when the party is going to be held in jail and given a stern talking to is better than running away when the Lich King starts going out to murder them and seal their souls in eternal torment.

One is annoying, the other can devastate the party and lead to really harsh feelings. Especially if the group is fairly sure that if they had all been pulling their weight, they could have survived.





see, you are changing the nature of the problem. A cowardly wizard who stands back and throws magic at the problem isn't the type of "coward" that we are talking about. We've given a few examples of how to make "coward" work but still act in accordance with the rest of the party.

The issue isn't "Coward who is convinced to follow the party and still contributes to the mission" it is "Things got dangerous, time to abandon the party and save my own skin". So, no one disagrees with you that "coward + reason to keep going" can't work. It totally can, but that is circumventing the issue we are talking about.
Fair enough. I kept talking while under the impression that the problem related more to rp and generally to out of combat things. I still cannot wrap my head around why combat is such an issue. I understand the position that a coward pc might end up operating at a lower efficiency, but the same thing can happen because of many different other reasons (eg compromising your build or combat options because of character theme, because of player skill, etc). I cannot think of it as a problem exclussively for coward characters, but I can think of it as a problem the player has representing their character theme.

The issue of fighting till the end vs fleeing is not exclussively tied to character concept either. Most of the times it's a player choice. Yes, sometimes the choice might be predetermined if the character concept is decided when it comes to a situation like this, but if I had to guess I'd say that this is not often the case. Meaning, this issue can exist despite the existence or absense of coward characters, and if it exists then it's usually by DM choice (making most fights deadly enough to produce such dilemmas). That's a table issue. How important it is to all stick to the same decision, how much it bothers players to have their characters killed/dissappear into NPC territory, etc, are things that the group might want to resolve before they even think about what kind of campaign they want or what characters they play.

Personally, I enjoy the occasional fight where you are not sure if you have to see it through or to flee (as most people I'd assume, though the frequency will surely vary for every one of us). And I dont mind if the party does not stick to the same decision. And I dont mind if my character gets killed because of that. Will it bother me if that decision was unecessarily forced by someone who used that as an opportunity to overplay a character trait at the expense of someone else's character getting killed? Sure. Same way as it would bother me when any other irrational decision resulted or risked similar loses for the same reason (ie overplaying a character trait). In such cases the pc in question will probably be kicked out, if the other pc's have any sort of common sense and they can afford to do so. Maybe the player needs to be told to make characters that fit better with the rest of the party too, if that's a common pattern or if you want to avoid risking similar situations in the future. All in all though, that's what I would call either a player's problem (because their characters lack motivation and/or depth) or a problem player (if they are doing it for the lols).

[Chaosmancer]

Fair enough. I kept talking while under the impression that the problem related more to rp and generally to out of combat things. I still cannot wrap my head around why combat is such an issue. I understand the position that a coward pc might end up operating at a lower efficiency, but the same thing can happen because of many different other reasons (eg compromising your build or combat options because of character theme, because of player skill, etc). I cannot think of it as a problem exclussively for coward characters, but I can think of it as a problem the player has representing their character theme.

The issue of fighting till the end vs fleeing is not exclussively tied to character concept either. Most of the times it's a player choice. Yes, sometimes the choice might be predetermined if the character concept is decided when it comes to a situation like this, but if I had to guess I'd say that this is not often the case. Meaning, this issue can exist despite the existence or absense of coward characters, and if it exists then it's usually by DM choice (making most fights deadly enough to produce such dilemmas). That's a table issue. How important it is to all stick to the same decision, how much it bothers players to have their characters killed/dissappear into NPC territory, etc, are things that the group might want to resolve before they even think about what kind of campaign they want or what characters they play.

Personally, I enjoy the occasional fight where you are not sure if you have to see it through or to flee (as most people I'd assume, though the frequency will surely vary for every one of us). And I dont mind if the party does not stick to the same decision. And I dont mind if my character gets killed because of that. Will it bother me if that decision was unecessarily forced by someone who used that as an opportunity to overplay a character trait at the expense of someone else's character getting killed? Sure. Same way as it would bother me when any other irrational decision resulted or risked similar loses for the same reason (ie overplaying a character trait). In such cases the pc in question will probably be kicked out, if the other pc's have any sort of common sense and they can afford to do so. Maybe the player needs to be told to make characters that fit better with the rest of the party too, if that's a common pattern or if you want to avoid risking similar situations in the future. All in all though, that's what I would call either a player's problem (because their characters lack motivation and/or depth) or a problem player (if they are doing it for the lols).

I think the issue becomes a combat issue mostly because there isn't much else as obviously dangerous that makes sense to try and "force" people to face. "I'm not walking down the obviously trapped and deadly flaming hallway" is a little less of something that can leave a bad taste in people's mouth's. And generally some RP of needing to be forced into a particular dungeon isn't too bad, though it would be annoying to be a constant thing.

And so it comes to combat, and that makes the stakes pretty high.

And you are right, it is generally the overplayed trait, and that can be done with other things, but it is usually... less bad. Like, a greedy character stealing the king's jewels and getting the party in trouble is a big deal. But, in that sort of scenario it is generally a third party that has been directly wronged. The king was stolen from, the party is just caught in the fallout. But, the coward who runs away and abandons the party has wronged the party themselves. And the party got hit with the fallout. It is a double whammy, just like the greedy character who steals from the party, or the rage-filled character who attacks the party. But, while those are easy to turn outward away from the party, Cowardice is something that you can't turn outward.

[LumenPlacidum]

I find it difficult to support the premise that, because the Coward isn't gainfully participating in the party's combat, then the player of the Coward is wrong and has sinned against the group of players. If I were to extend that premise, then I would be forced to say that any character who is not gainfully participating in the party's combat is similarly wrong. And, where does this 'gainfully' begin? If someone decides to use a dagger instead of a short sword on their character, am I well within my rights to tell them to leave the group because they're endangering the party's survival? If someone makes a Sun Soul monk character, and they decide that they want to be the greatest heavyweight chef in the world, boosting Strength to let themselves lift heavier and heavier pans, it seems like people would go beyond commenting on how mechanically ineffective that person's character is all the way to the point of refusing to play with that player for deciding to play something suboptimal?

I can get behind the idea that the other PCs might suggest to such a person that maybe the life of an adventurer isn't for them. It's awful when the social contract among the players breaks the verisimilitude of the game. However, I also refute the concept that groups of PCs would definitely do that if one of their members is underperforming, simply based on how common it is for groups of PCs to adopt "pet" NPCs. We clad the kobold in the finest armor we have access to and insist that he come along for the ride. The pet NPC might do something effective every now and then, and when they do, the table erupts in cheers because nobody expected them to do anything useful. They keep that character around because they're fun!

I just... I can't get behind the overall hostility that I'm sensing from the community here toward nameless player of Coward PC. It just feels wrong.

[Segev]

I find it difficult to support the premise that, because the Coward isn't gainfully participating in the party's combat, then the player of the Coward is wrong and has sinned against the group of players. If I were to extend that premise, then I would be forced to say that any character who is not gainfully participating in the party's combat is similarly wrong. And, where does this 'gainfully' begin? If someone decides to use a dagger instead of a short sword on their character, am I well within my rights to tell them to leave the group because they're endangering the party's survival? If someone makes a Sun Soul monk character, and they decide that they want to be the greatest heavyweight chef in the world, boosting Strength to let themselves lift heavier and heavier pans, it seems like people would go beyond commenting on how mechanically ineffective that person's character is all the way to the point of refusing to play with that player for deciding to play something suboptimal?

I can get behind the idea that the other PCs might suggest to such a person that maybe the life of an adventurer isn't for them. It's awful when the social contract among the players breaks the verisimilitude of the game. However, I also refute the concept that groups of PCs would definitely do that if one of their members is underperforming, simply based on how common it is for groups of PCs to adopt "pet" NPCs. We clad the kobold in the finest armor we have access to and insist that he come along for the ride. The pet NPC might do something effective every now and then, and when they do, the table erupts in cheers because nobody expected them to do anything useful. They keep that character around because they're fun!

I just... I can't get behind the overall hostility that I'm sensing from the community here toward nameless player of Coward PC. It just feels wrong.

It's not hostility towards simply "contributing less to combat," but to actively making in-combat bad choices that drag the team down.

The line may not be crisp and sharp, but there comes a point where having somebody who COULD do something useful REFUSE to do it is just not fun for everyone else. If the group is okay with having a PC in the party who just isn't part of fights, that's one thing. If the PC who is a coward is actively making fights harder than if he weren't there, that's another.

Consider how annoying escort missions in video games can be when the escort character is badly AI'd or otherwise particularly irritating to keep alive. Now, imagine the AI is a person sitting across the table from you.

[Tanarii]

Plus it's annoying to everyone else if the PC is siphoning off XP they'd otherwise get.

Even a "contributing less than their full share" PC can get hit by that perception. It's one of the reasons many older edition players didn't like henchmen/retainers, for that matter.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nobody's going to care if you're a coward as long as you just figure out how you're going to pull your weight.

If you're doing less than that, then the DM needs to plan around that.

That's it, that's the answer. "Teamwork" or "Communication", take your pick.

[Sigreid]

Nobody's going to care if you're a coward as long as you just figure out how you're going to pull your weight.

If you're doing less than that, then the DM needs to plan around that.

That's it, that's the answer. "Teamwork" or "Communication", take your pick.

I don't know. If your method of being a coward is to vocally whine all the time, I don't want to play with that character either.

Maybe look to Shaggy and Scoobydoo for how to do it?

[Chaosmancer]

I find it difficult to support the premise that, because the Coward isn't gainfully participating in the party's combat, then the player of the Coward is wrong and has sinned against the group of players. If I were to extend that premise, then I would be forced to say that any character who is not gainfully participating in the party's combat is similarly wrong. And, where does this 'gainfully' begin? If someone decides to use a dagger instead of a short sword on their character, am I well within my rights to tell them to leave the group because they're endangering the party's survival? If someone makes a Sun Soul monk character, and they decide that they want to be the greatest heavyweight chef in the world, boosting Strength to let themselves lift heavier and heavier pans, it seems like people would go beyond commenting on how mechanically ineffective that person's character is all the way to the point of refusing to play with that player for deciding to play something suboptimal?

I can get behind the idea that the other PCs might suggest to such a person that maybe the life of an adventurer isn't for them. It's awful when the social contract among the players breaks the verisimilitude of the game. However, I also refute the concept that groups of PCs would definitely do that if one of their members is underperforming, simply based on how common it is for groups of PCs to adopt "pet" NPCs. We clad the kobold in the finest armor we have access to and insist that he come along for the ride. The pet NPC might do something effective every now and then, and when they do, the table erupts in cheers because nobody expected them to do anything useful. They keep that character around because they're fun!

I just... I can't get behind the overall hostility that I'm sensing from the community here toward nameless player of Coward PC. It just feels wrong.


The hostility has nothing to do with "gainfully participating" it is about actively sabotaging.

That Sun Soul monk is still fighting, right? I don't care if he isn't optimized, he is still participating and signalling to the group "we are all in this together". But what if a fight came up and the monk turned around and said "my life is more important to me than any of you, I am running."

Well then... why are you sitting at the table to play a group game? If you don't care about the rest of the people at the table, to the point where you will actively sabotage them to protect yourself, you aren't here to play a team game.


Using daggers instead of shortswords is nothing like what we are talking about. We are talking about a person basically signalling to the rest of the group "I don't want to play". Well, if you don't want to play, then why are you here? I get not everyone is there for combat and combat isn't the entire game. I get it. But combat is part of DnD, it is an expected activity, and unless you have specifically set things up differently, sitting down to play DnD means you are sitting down expecting to get into combat and participate. Running away just to save yourself, and abandoning the rest of the party, goes against that.

I've experienced this in multiple groups with multiple different expressions of it. It is a very bad sign and corrosive to group games.

[noob]

The hostility has nothing to do with "gainfully participating" it is about actively sabotaging.

That Sun Soul monk is still fighting, right? I don't care if he isn't optimized, he is still participating and signalling to the group "we are all in this together". But what if a fight came up and the monk turned around and said "my life is more important to me than any of you, I am running."

Well then... why are you sitting at the table to play a group game? If you don't care about the rest of the people at the table, to the point where you will actively sabotage them to protect yourself, you aren't here to play a team game.


Using daggers instead of shortswords is nothing like what we are talking about. We are talking about a person basically signalling to the rest of the group "I don't want to play". Well, if you don't want to play, then why are you here? I get not everyone is there for combat and combat isn't the entire game. I get it. But combat is part of DnD, it is an expected activity, and unless you have specifically set things up differently, sitting down to play DnD means you are sitting down expecting to get into combat and participate. Running away just to save yourself, and abandoning the rest of the party, goes against that.

I've experienced this in multiple groups with multiple different expressions of it. It is a very bad sign and corrosive to group games.

If the whole group agreed the go to tactic in a fight with an opponent that is slower is fleeing then it would be fine to flee against such opponent.
I think that being cowardly is an issue if it is separating the party or making members not participate in the team effort (if the team effort is running away then running away too is fine).

[Lunali]

Many adventurers intentionally made to be cowards go the "Cowardly Lion" road, aka they're fearful but when the chips are down they will try their best to brave those fears. Rincewind was fully prepared to fight the most powerful magic user on his world armed only with an half-brick in a sock, for example.

At the time Rincewind was effectively under a magical compulsion to fight, hardly the most compelling example.

[Chaosmancer]

If the whole group agreed the go to tactic in a fight with an opponent that is slower is fleeing then it would be fine to flee against such opponent.
I think that being cowardly is an issue if it is separating the party or making members not participate in the team effort (if the team effort is running away then running away too is fine).

Completely agree. It is about abandoning the group, betraying them in a very fundamental way. That is the problem.