Extreme self-preservation

[ccs]

Wow, that sounds like a crap game.

What's the rational behind the characters must be back at base by end of the session rule?
What happens if they aren't back?

I know you said it's a series of crawls, but is there any kind of cohesion between them?
Are there any limits on what kind of crawls you can run?

As for monsters chasing down characters vs just attacking who ever is closest? 9 Hells yes. If you think that'll make for a more interesting encounter, then run those cowards down!
Same goes for flanking, ambushing, traps, hazards, weird magical effects, AoE effects (especially on those trying to cluster back around the corner - "Fire in the Hole!"), etc. Use anything & everything.

And you should stock your encounters with enough monsters so that everyone gets to play.
Ex: 5 characters = I've got a goblin for you, and you, and you & you too. And because #5 can kill two per round I've got 3 or 4 more for him.

Rogues hiding & sneak attacking at range. You're the DM, use your discretion.

How do you handle players that play their characters as extreme cowards rather than heroes? I mean, one player like that could be a fun running gag, but if they all do it, it gets kind of annoying fast.

Depends.
If they're adding to the story/fun otherwise, fine. Ex: In our ToA game we have a cowardly tiefling wizards apprentice.
The kid made a character who was essentially drafted into learning some magic (near sole survivor of an NPC party, frantically trying to decipher his dead masters spellbook). Then the other characters (who're all higher lv than he is) rescued him & are towing him along. He'll flee threats aimed at challenging the party. Out of combat though he's proven useful. And entertaining.
Add in the fact that he can only play until x time.... So at 8pm the tiefling cast invisibility & disappears.
vs.
My friend George. I like George. We've been friends for along time. But RPGwise, whatever the system, George makes characters who're 100% based on personal survival. Often rogues or wizards in D&D who're never on the front lines, & will bolt at any opportunity. And won't take any out-of-combat risks either. Nor does George ever add anything to the story. He makes characters with (at best) about a tweets worth of background/description & never takes any plot hooks nor generates them. Yet goes to extreme lengths for personal survival....
We surmised that he does this because he's not happy unless he's the DM. He's trying to wait out who ever is currently DMing so that it'll become "His turn" again.
But that's never happening - because through hard xp we've learned that George is a terrible DM & none of us will play in a game he runs. So George & his cowardly characters got the boot from our RPG nights long ago.

 

[aco175]

I have a semi-normal game with my son who plays with my normal group on odd weeks when there is no school the next day. This means that he can play only every couple months during the school year and for several weeks in a row in the summer. Normally I make the weekly dungeon small so that it is finished in just the one night so the players know that there is no outlying problems or what they were doing from a couple months back.

I think the idea of having several players in one game but only a few that make it to the game. You may have a set of a few with rotating group of another couple players. It makes sense to wrap it up each week so players can come and go and not feel like there is too much going on behind them or they are not welcome since the rest of the group is in the middle of something.

Swapping DMs also makes thing a bit difficult and lends itself to having closed adventures each week as well. An overall theme of working for a guild or patron makes sense and at least the world all the DMs play in is similar this way. It wraps the campaign in similarities so that the players kind of expect the same things with how things work.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Why are these people even going on an adventure together if they don't trust each other in a dangerous situation? Watch eachother's backs is like the first rule of squad combat.

 

[Reynard]

I am interested in what the basic assumptions of the delves are. Are they quick cash grabs? Is it a form of spectator sport? Is it an attempt to clear a dungeon? Is someone looking for something? Why are these characters going into the dungeon, and what do they get for their efforts?

Then I am interested in why the PLAYERS are there. Are they there to try and see if they can survive against a killer GM? Are they trying to get their specific character loot and XP? Are they there just to play some D&D? Is there an overall structure to play?

I ran a long term dungeon crawl in my local store for a couple years. It had drop in play and assumed exits from the delve at the end of each session. In that case, the goal was to map the place. the PCs got a per room gold and XP bonus based on dungeon level, so they always had motivation to push further and deeper. In order to survive that, they had to work together. That did not mean all the PCs (or players) necessarily liked each other, but they still relied on one another. I was also heavy handed when it came to intra-party conflict and was not shy about dis-inviting particularly problematic players.

It is a format that can be a lot of fun, but you have to get everyone on board with the basic assumptions and rules of the table. At the very least the GMs running the thing need to have a meeting or something and make sure their is consistency in how it is structured.

 

[Eltab]

Have you talked to the group organizer about this? A message coming from The Authorities will go over better than one from a fellow player.

Tell your PCs that you have heard about a small but growing problem with self-centered cowardice in some game play, and you will be looking out for it. Introduce this as 'I had a crummy experience a few weeks back' not 'You personally are guilty-without-trial and are ruining everybody else's (and my) game'.
As noted above, remind them that everybody has each other's back.
If you run low on IRL time and the dungeon is not cleared out, give them an unhindered route to escape.

Plus, take good notes. So somebody else next month can adventure in a half-cleared dungeon that ate an earlier party, who now need rescued !

 

[smbakeresq]

As far as shooting breaking hiding it does if the monster has a line of sight to you. The whole point of a rogue getting to use bonus action to hide is to move, attack, move to a place with where they can’t see you, and then use the bonus action to hide.

It’s not up to discretion IMO, it’s the rule. You are not hidden until you take the hide action when a visibility condition grants you a chance to do so, like behind an object, heavily obscured, etc.

I think you group is confusing being out of line of sight with being hidden. If you duck behind a post, the enemy still knows where you are they just can’t see you. Hidden is a specific condition from taking the hide action.

Otherwise you waste a primary rogue ability.

 

[Zardnaar]

I had a married couple who did this and then their mate would join in. Ended up booting the couple and let the other one play eventually. Thats gone down to don't want to play with him either as all his PC are basically CN and do the same stupid crap. They tried doing but no one else stayed for long it was to mad. CN players DM, party the whole shebang.

 

[Blue]

People have a lot of good advice. This is not meant to replace any of it.

Ask the other DMs if they are seeing the same thing. If so, maybe designed so that occasional monster reinforcements from the rear become a regular thing. Just enough that retreating isn't seen as the uber-safe option.

For you in particular, put in a portcullis that falls during a fight with nice magical loot. If people retreated before they fall they are safe - but there's nice treasure in the room and the survivors will probably be loathe to share with them. Crying "we should share the treasure we're a party" is very at odds with "we're running and letting you fight".

This is assuming talking to players int he first place, either as a player or a DM, didn't change things.

 

[77IM]

Controversial idea:
Scale XP awarded for monster slaying according to individual contribution. If the fight lasts N rounds, then each round you spend avoiding combat reduces your portion of the XP by 1/N. There's an exception if you are down to 1/4 hit points or lower, or something.

Less controversial idea:
Award Inspiration liberally for players who stand and fight. (I like to allow PCs to accumulate multiple Inspirations so that you always have this "carrot" available.)

 

[rgoodbb]

This will probably not be helpful to you, but if players started doing this in a game I was DM'ing

Everyone who regularly fights and tries to help their party members, levels up.

Everyone who regularly runs and deliberately makes sure another party member gets hurt, levels down

Also their alignments shift each time until they are no longer allowed to play.

End of running/backstabbing/non-cohesive players

But as suggested, you should probably talk to folks before that.