Your thoughts of my last session, possible pvp and player expectations

[Lord_Viper_69]

Hello all.
I seek your opinions of my last session. The module Crypt of the Everflame to craft an organic group with ties based in-game and their backgrounds for additional possibilities. The group makes it to the final boss and his minions (skeletal champion ftr 2 and four 1HD skeletons). A captured civilian is in the room. One player's expectations (human cleric) are announced.

Lvl 2:
CG human cleric (summoner)
CN human monk
N elf wizard (utility, conjuration specialist)
NPC CG rogue and CG shieldbearer fighter

The boss acts intelligently, an intelligent skeletal champion. The group stays in the doorway waiting for the boss to walk into them and be easily destroyed, it sends minions to distract them. The player states that two intelligent opponents will not fight each other and states I should make the enemies act stupidly, to continue the adventure. A skeleton takes the civilian away for likely torture and the group will not aid her (not that the sex matters).

I disagree with having enemies act stupidly just for ease and a player win; another player, the CN monk (important later) does move in and engage the enemy. The skeletal champion moves in, misses an attack but offers the monk riches, an easier life, and undeath (whether it could actually do it was unknown but it had raised itself, angry spirit). The monk player considers the offer, sense motive reveals the skeleton will attempt to make him undead, no lies and the next round he attacks the cleric.

Everything broke down at this point. The cleric player stopped immediately, the moment the attack roll was done, and stated he was done and I had TPK'd the party. We could not return to the game to let anything play out and he would not listen to different ideas of what could occur. The cleric stated the metagame aspect of party members never turn on each other or consider it and the DM should stop such player actions or "rewind" prior to that event and pretend it never happened.

I do not stifle player actions, if they are within the character's personality and background. Apparently, the CN monk sought immortality and went for the possibly easiest route. This would not have ended the game, three options were present:
A. There was a ghost present associated with the skeletal champion but benevolent, he would have brought the monk to an understanding of the champion's abilities and that he made a bad decision.
B. The group responds and eliminates the monk, the 1HD skeletons (4) and the skeleton champion (CR4). The monk, if alive, becomes an NPC and possible future enemy (organically crafted). The player creates a new character and the group has a story to tell that fits well with a pirate theme (the adventure path to follow).
C. The monk becomes an NPC and rolls a new character. (The monk placed himself between party members but prevented a flank.).

The player fully understood his actions and consequences.

Thoughts?

[Geddy2112]

What?

I honestly don't understand why any of this happened....at all.

First, the cleric player challenges your ruling on how intelligent enemies should act in combat, and that they should play stupid to continue the adventure. I can understand disagreeing with the DM, but that is just stupid.

Second, the monk takes an honest deal to become immortal. Okay, I see how that might cause conflict in the party, but I don't see why the monk had to attack the cleric out of the blue the moment he realized the champion was serious.

At this point, I can understand that the cleric is frustrated that a traveling companion attacked them out of the blue for no real reason. However, this is not your fault nor a TPK; the interparty conflict is based on the monk, who is clearly an enemy at this point. I agree that unless all players are openly okay with backstabbing and being evil psychopaths that nobody should(and certainly not in secret). As far as the DM stopping them, again, if it is agreed on beforehand that nobody wants to play in a campaign with people who will backstab each other at the drop of the hat, a bit of metagaming and deus ex is probably in order.

As far as solutions go, I think A is out the window, as the monk played their hand as soon as there was a chance to be immortal. B is certainly an option and probably the most satisfying for the cleric. C is a similar option if the monk player will be hurt that the party fights back, and honestly if they understand that they just betrayed traveling companions who have had their back in about 12 seconds of talking to an undead. The group has every right to feel betrayed and murder this jerk. Now, if the monk went the NPC route of "Let me be, lets talk this out and I can be immortal" it might have worked better.

Either way, the monk player should roll up a character that is going to work better with the group.

[Anxe]

"Intelligent opponents will not fight each other." I just... No... And then you even go along with the idea that intelligent people don't fight by having the Champ Skeleton negotiate with the monk to split the party. This doesn't sound like an unfair encounter for a party of 5 lvl 2 PCs either. Maybe an EL of 5, but that should be easy enough.

I'd guess something else was bothering the cleric player and he just wanted an easy game to play that night instead of something a little difficult like this combat.

[Lord_Viper_69]

The glut of adventure paths and especially DM's who follow them religiously has led to this idea, at least partially, I believe.
The encounters have a rhythm, the enemy will not escape or will act in a certain way, nothing unexpected. PC's become entitled, believing all enemies will perish and they will do something to place themselves in danger ("that's what NPC's are for, to be defeated and take their stuff" so sayeth the murderhobos or many players). Any unexpected actions and PC's of strict Adventure Paths or entitlements lose their coherence.

I run sandbox games and I modify modules and AP's for some uncertainty, differences from the stock books printed. This actually lessens the available players in my area as they are rather coddled and have their "safety net" at all times (thinking they know exactly what will happen and they will always face encounters they can overcome with simple, mindless tactics or the enemies will act stupidly).

If one reads the modules they will have the blueprint for the sessions upcoming, if they are cheaters.

[goto124]

Why is there so much hate against those who pre-read adventure paths?

What about players who are experienced enough to know the adventure path anyway? DMs who've read the path before and decided to be players of another DM who happens to be running the same path?

Players who pre-read the path to ensure they don't go off the rails and frustrate the DM?

[eleazzaar]

PvP is a touchy subject.

It should have been discussed before hand-- what boundaries exist, if any-- rather than suddenly dropped on players who may have thought that they were playing a 100% team game.

Personally i'd enjoy dramatic PvP such as you describe, but I respect that other players aren't comfortable with it at all.

[Lacco]

I see also option D: The chaotic good cleric tries to persuade the Monk during the fight, that his choice is wrong.

Spoiler: Obligatory reference

Show

Darth Vader: You cannot hide forever, Luke.
Luke: I will not fight you.
...ok, maybe I could have picked another one, but you get the idea.

Roleplay shouldn't end as soon as the combat starts.

However, I understand also the player. Being "stabbed in the back" (and not by the rogue) can be annoying. This could have been prevented, but not on the GM side - the GM could have only stopped the game at that point and discuss it with the players, but that is the only thing that occurs to me.

The monk player could have landed the first blow after starting conversation ("I am sorry my friend, but immortality is my goal") - giving the cleric chance to respond.
The cleric could have tried to persuade him ("It is no true immortality if I can turn you to dust").

And as for the "enemies should fight stupid" - I agree with the statements above.

[Kane0]

It sounds to me like all the players need to be sat down by you, the dm, and talk openly. Explain what you expect of the game, and hear their views. They both seem to be avoiding grey areas regarding 'NPC AI' and party cohesion, which needs to be sorted out. This means you need to be both firm and understanding also. Do not avoid awkward subjects like alignment in the game, pvp or metagaming. This is the time to get all tht straight.

For the cleric: you are right to be upset about the monk attacking you, and it was within reason to fight back. But regarding the sleleton; intelligent means can think and reason, genre savvy means they know their role in the story and may or may not adhere to it. He shouldnt mix those up and he should not expect things to be easy, simple or straightforward unless that it expressed and agreed at the table before the game starts.

To the monk: great RP, but why oh why did you immediately turn and burn all your bridges by attacking? You fouled up some massive RP with that attack roll.

To all: people can speak during combat, and they should. Combat and RP do not need to be kept separate, and the players need to have faith in the DM and trust that he can keep the game going if the players do something unexpected. Likewise the DM needs to know that the players are here to work together and have fun in a group story.
Calling a brief halt to make a decision or talk something over is alright if you dont do it too often or take too long, just like checking a rule.

[KillianHawkeye]

Sounds to me like one of the players might be lacking in maturity, but there's not enough information to say if it's the cleric or the monk. Or else the cleric's player just has a completely different, possibly incompatible, play style than the rest of the group (assuming the other players had as little problem with what happened as you did).

I'm curious as to how long this group has been playing together? Is it your first game with the cleric player? This sort of conflict never almost happens in my group unless it involves a new player that isn't used to the way we operate.

[Lord_Viper_69]

Sounds to me like one of the players might be lacking in maturity, but there's not enough information to say if it's the cleric or the monk. Or else the cleric's player just has a completely different, possibly incompatible, play style than the rest of the group (assuming the other players had as little problem with what happened as you did).

I'm curious as to how long this group has been playing together? Is it your first game with the cleric player? This sort of conflict never almost happens in my group unless it involves a new player that isn't used to the way we operate.

This group has been semi-consistent since august and one new arrival but he is quite flexible. They know I allow much player creativity and actions, they do not try to break the setting, etc.
The cleric player likes a very structured, railroad, illusion of choice game (all roads lead to the next goal) while the monk player can play in any setting but prefers freedom in a setting and pushing boundaries for characters. The new guy I knew prior and he is quite open to anything.

I generally run a sandbox, one can do anything, the world and overarching story continue. I do lead events where I need to for the story and if it is ignored by the group, I have many options and I improvise well.
I have attempted an adventure path once before and I do not like them, default. I heavily modify them to actually have a role as a DM; simply reading off the actions from the book is lazy and best for those with little to no time (that they choose to commit to gaming) or those with little motivation.
Simply sitting down, pre-read a bit, state dialogue, roll dice, zzzzzzz (sleep) is not what I want to run or participate in.

The main problem within the group has been differences in preferred style. Two prefer roleplay over mechanics and are drawn into their characters and act as the PC's would while one likes mechanics, his roleplay is limited and simple and has difficulty becoming attached or invested in a character. There has been slow growth in the roleplay side but they do not speak openly to each other, I must address it directly individually and make it a point in a group discussion.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you if this guy is somebody you've been gaming with for the better part of a year. If he's going to pitch a fit at the table like that, my only advice is that he should go back to playing video games and leave roleplaying to the adults.