That player in the back of the room

nswanson27 · Mar 31, 2016

Maxperson said:
The DM is targeting someone with a hostile action in order to force them to do what he wants. That's bullying. If the DM and players are at that point, they should just talk to the guy and ask him to leave, which is not bullying. If the AL rules prevent that, then the PCs should just roleplay kicking the PC out of the group for endangering the rest of them and being untrustworthy when it comes to combat. That's also not bullying, because it's the logical action of people (in this case PCs) whose lives are being repeatedly risked by someone else (in this case the cowardly PC).

As I've stated before, there are perfectly good in-game reasons why enemies may not always target the front lines and go for the ones running away. Also, saying that having a couple enemies go after the hiding player is not "targeting" any more than it's "targeting" the rest of the party. If they see him and associate him with the attacking group, he's fair game. Now, if ALL of them go after the hiding player every time, that would be a different story.

kalani · Mar 31, 2016

There is a difference between targeting other characters (which can and should happen, depending on the monsters involved) - and deliberately trying to kill a specific PC and picking on that character in situations where it wouldn't make sense and/or being harder on that PC than other PCs at the same table.

nswanson27 · Mar 31, 2016

kalani said:
There is a difference between targeting other characters (which can and should happen, depending on the monsters involved) - and deliberately trying to kill a specific PC and picking on that character in situations where it wouldn't make sense and/or being harder on that PC than other PCs at the same table.

Agreed. I guess my point with that is running and hiding PCs still having to deal with threats shouldn't just be lumped in the latter category out-of-hand.

Maxperson · Mar 31, 2016

nswanson27 said:
As I've stated before, there are perfectly good in-game reasons why enemies may not always target the front lines and go for the ones running away. Also, saying that having a couple enemies go after the hiding player is not "targeting" any more than it's "targeting" the rest of the party. If they see him and associate him with the attacking group, he's fair game. Now, if ALL of them go after the hiding player every time, that would be a different story.

Yes, but most of those reasons don't make sense most of the time. Sure, there are reasons to ignore PCs and go for the one in the back, but they aren't going to be present most of the time.

I think one of your examples was evil. Well, evil doesn't equal stupid, and it would be stupid to ignore the 3 PCs who are killing you in order to attack the one doing nothing.

If the DM contrives to attack the PC, it's almost always going to be obvious that it was a contrived attack and not really the monsters having a true reason.

Mishihari Lord · Mar 31, 2016

My first take on this is that the DM should try to solve it. First, involve him in combat. If he's there with the rest of the group then he's close enough to hit. In fact, smart enemies might make him a prime target. In their place, if a PC was seemingly doing nothing for an extended time I'd figure he was trying to get off an effect that takes several round to make happen and would win the combat. (caveat - I haven't played much 5e so I'm basing this on my experience with previous editions)

Second, to the greatest extent possible, involve him in noncombat activities that he seems more interested in.

nswanson27 · Mar 31, 2016

Maxperson said:
Yes, but most of those reasons don't make sense most of the time. Sure, there are reasons to ignore PCs and go for the one in the back, but they aren't going to be present most of the time.

I think one of your examples was evil. Well, evil doesn't equal stupid, and it would be stupid to ignore the 3 PCs who are killing you in order to attack the one doing nothing.

If the DM contrives to attack the PC, it's almost always going to be obvious that it was a contrived attack and not really the monsters having a true reason.

Correct. Not saying this is a perfect solution - again, the other bird that I'm trying to kill with this stone is an attempt to re-balance the fight a little due to one PCs non-participation. But I would say it fits in than more than it would seem at first glance. Any sort of hunter-prey instinct in the enemy could be triggered by someone turning tail. Maybe they think the one running and hiding is a caster/buffer, and dropping him will make the rest of the group easier to take down? As a PC, much of the time the top target strategically is not on the front enemy line.

Byakugan · Apr 1, 2016

The DM is supposed to contrive to attack and challenge -ALL- of the characters. If all you do is make every monster swing at the closest thing you are doing it wrong. Heck, many of the encounters require you to play them poorly to not cause instant TPKs(season 1 assasins, season 2 necromancer). Season 4 has a BBEG that isnt very strong but that relies entirely on hit and run tactics to survive, thus becoming a very deadly threat.

Cruel enemies may attack the weak/cowardly. Other creatures hate people of specific races more. I usually make unholy/undead things target the ones that burn them with holy fire.

Byakugan · Apr 1, 2016

The DM is supposed to contrive to attack and challenge -ALL- of the characters. If all you do is make every monster swing at the closest thing you are doing it wrong. Heck, many of the encounters require you to play them poorly to not cause instant TPKs(season 1 assasins, season 2 necromancer). Season 4 has a BBEG that isnt very strong but that relies entirely on hit and run tactics to survive, thus becoming a very deadly threat.

Cruel enemies may attack the weak/cowardly. Other creatures hate people of specific races more. I usually make unholy/undead things target the ones that burn them with holy fire.

Pauper · Apr 1, 2016

Byakugan said:
The DM is supposed to contrive to attack and challenge -ALL- of the characters. If all you do is make every monster swing at the closest thing you are doing it wrong.

Here's my problem with that -- an unskilled DM can make it seem as though he's simply 'got it out' for a PC**, when the reality is that the adventure is specifying a given tactic.

** - The idea that attacking a character who's player is reluctant to participate in combat will convince the player to more actively participate explicitly uses this as an assumption -- it assumes the player will realize that the only reason the enemies are targeting his character is that the DM is trying to 'punish' him for not participating. Given the number of alternate explanations mentioned in this thread for why doing this is a 'valid tactic', I think it's fair to say that the player might well not realize that being hunted down while hiding is a direct result of his hiding, and that the DM is either following specific advice in the module, or is simply hunting down the PC because the DM is a jerk.

Case in point, a recent session of DDEX 2-3, The Drowned Tower, where my relatively low AC cleric/wizard was repeatedly targeted by the most powerful enemies in the encounter. Even the other players at the table were convinced I'd done something to offend the DM, to the point where the DM was forced to reveal after the encounter was over that the module directed the enemies to attack specific opponents.

[sblock]And, reviewing the module myself, I discovered that the DM simply misinterpreted the suggested tactics, interpreting "the berserker prefer to attack spellcasters while the bandit captain engages any healers" as "the berserker exclusively attack clerics while the bandit captain prefers to attack any healers".[/sblock]

Ultimately, the DMs goal is not to make sure that every PC gets attacked, but to provide a fun challenge for the entire party. (The ALDMG even explicitly says that following the adventure text word-for-word is significantly less important than providing a fun experience.) There will definitely be times when doing the former prevents the DM from doing the latter, thus I wouldn't consider the former to be good advice.

--
Pauper

nswanson27 · Apr 1, 2016

Pauper said:
Here's my problem with that -- an unskilled DM can make it seem as though he's simply 'got it out' for a PC**, when the reality is that the adventure is specifying a given tactic.

** - The idea that attacking a character who's player is reluctant to participate in combat will convince the player to more actively participate explicitly uses this as an assumption -- it assumes the player will realize that the only reason the enemies are targeting his character is that the DM is trying to 'punish' him for not participating. Given the number of alternate explanations mentioned in this thread for why doing this is a 'valid tactic', I think it's fair to say that the player might well not realize that being hunted down while hiding is a direct result of his hiding, and that the DM is either following specific advice in the module, or is simply hunting down the PC because the DM is a jerk.

Case in point, a recent session of DDEX 2-3, The Drowned Tower, where my relatively low AC cleric/wizard was repeatedly targeted by the most powerful enemies in the encounter. Even the other players at the table were convinced I'd done something to offend the DM, to the point where the DM was forced to reveal after the encounter was over that the module directed the enemies to attack specific opponents.

[sblock]And, reviewing the module myself, I discovered that the DM simply misinterpreted the suggested tactics, interpreting "the berserker prefer to attack spellcasters while the bandit captain engages any healers" as "the berserker exclusively attack clerics while the bandit captain prefers to attack any healers".[/sblock]

Ultimately, the DMs goal is not to make sure that every PC gets attacked, but to provide a fun challenge for the entire party. (The ALDMG even explicitly says that following the adventure text word-for-word is significantly less important than providing a fun experience.) There will definitely be times when doing the former prevents the DM from doing the latter, thus I wouldn't consider the former to be good advice.

--
Pauper

Any sort of table ruling by the DM that negatively affects a player could also be perceived as "punishing" them as well. Should players be able to demand an explanation mid-game because their "feelings are hurt"? There's also the classic "evil DM", where they're "being a jerk" to the whole party. This has been part of the game since its inception. Are you going to object to those things as well?
Finally, if a DM decides that "providing a fun challenge" is that "making sure every PC gets attacked", that's completely their prerogative, even if they are perceived as being a jerk. What they are perceived as simply isn't most important thing. If the PC thinks otherwise, that's their problem - not the DM's, or anyone else's. There is a point where it's harassment, but something like that should be evident to ALL players and the AL coordinator, not just one stubborn, hyper-sensitive player.

That player in the back of the room

nswanson27

First Post

kalani

First Post

nswanson27

First Post

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Mishihari Lord

First Post

nswanson27

First Post

Byakugan

First Post

Byakugan

First Post

Pauper

That guy, who does that thing.

nswanson27

First Post

Similar Threads