People worried about saving everyone else

[whatisitgoodfor]

Dicechild, it sounds like you might have a problem with your gaming style. If, in every session, the PCs are being chased by the bad guys that they have no chance of defeating and one party memeber decides to sacrifice himself to save the others, I have to wonder why this situation keeps coming up.

If half the party is picking a fight with forces they can't hope to deal with, then running away, then have the people that are chasing be beaters instead of the threat. The heroic PCs simply defend themselves from the peons while the ones who started the fight get flushed into a horrible threat.

If the heroic party members are seeking out situations where they can find a suitable situation where they can be properly heroic, then you might want to suggest some professional counseling. A few visits to a real psychologist could most likely help them work through their issues with not being able to make a difference in the world and their desires for marytrdom.

If the frequent running conflicts with insurmountable foes are simply a plot device used by you to try and keep the campaign moving, then you should probably adjust your GMing style. It's entirely possible that the players are just rebelling against what they see as a repressive campaign style through some passive-agressive means. After all, most players understand (at least on a sub-conscious level) that having characters frequently die will destroy a campaign's continuity and REALLY tick off a GM.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Henry]

Why is it that there is always some hero in a group that believes he should stay behind and fight of the pack of winter wolves, town guards, or other group of monsters out to kill them. Doesn't this person realize that the only end is inevitable death. Can't he just run like everyone else.
I noticed in the campaign I'm running there are 2 such characters, and everyone else is saving their own asses. How do I regulate this so they can stay in the game and not die every time. And then for another thing, the other people in their party are selfish and do not see any point in resurrecting them. Although for some reason, it is hilarious
KP

There's nothing wrong with wanting to emulate their favorite fictional heroes; the problem is almost no Dungeon Masters ever set up a situation where one person HAS to be left behind, usually because no one wants to put their players in that situation. Therefore, the sacrificial death becomes pointless.

My suggestion? If you have someone in your game who is itching to do this, and you're sure of it, then set up a situation that requires it. Tell them point blank, through advice that occurs to the most tactical character, that there's no way they can escape a given situation unless someone can buy the group a few seconds. Let that player have his moment of glory, and you become the bad guy, if only for a little while. The players might also be more thankful to see what they can do to honor the character, or get him raised, because the sacrifice was necessary.

I myself have wished more opportunities like that when playing Paladins, or knightly or altruistic characters; alas, no DM is willing to go out on that limb to do it, despite my hinting that I wouldn't be opposed to such a sacrifice. It's cool in the movies and in novels, so why not at a game table?

 

[diaglo]

I myself have wished more opportunities like that when playing Paladins, or knightly or altruistic characters; alas, no DM is willing to go out on that limb to do it, despite my hinting that I wouldn't be opposed to such a sacrifice. It's cool in the movies and in novels, so why not at a game table?

come to Hotlanta.... you know you want to..
Read JoeBlank's Story Hour According to Hoyle

not to spoil it... but...

i'll be your Huckleberry...err... referee...

 

[S'mon]

My favourite gaming moments ever were when my PC heroically held off the BBEG to give the other PCs time to get away... even better when you then sweet-talk the BBEG into not killing you.

 

[atom crash]

I noticed in the campaign I'm running there are 2 such characters, and everyone else is saving their own asses. How do I regulate this so they can stay in the game and not die every time. And then for another thing, the other people in their party are selfish and do not see any point in resurrecting them.

Maybe the problem isn't with the 2 that are willing to stand and fight but with the ones who always run to save their own asses.

 

[Odhanan]

if that is how they want to play. let them.

Exactly. Let them, and adapt to what they want. If you're playing D&D, then that's supposed to be a heroes' game. By most people's standard, heroism isn't running for your life every time the situation requires it. But that's quite a subjective concept, indeed.

So what's the solution? Using their behavior to trigger interesting situations, i.e. what Henry says just above.

PS: by the way, as an answer to Henry's "I myself have wished more opportunities like that when playing Paladins, or knightly or altruistic characters; alas, no DM is willing to go out on that limb to do it, despite my hinting that I wouldn't be opposed to such a sacrifice. It's cool in the movies and in novels, so why not at a game table?" I'll answer "I am that kind of DM". I love when players are heroic, in every sense of the word (journey, courage, honor, stubborness... etc). I love when the game is cinematic. I love it when it plays out like in movies. That's what the game is all about, IMO.

 

[JoeBlank]

I agree with those who have said "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." If this is the kind of characters your players want to play, let them and then present opportunities for them. Sometimes it is fun to play the self-sacrificing hero, other times it is fun to be the sneaky bastard who slinks away but lives to fight another day.

come to Hotlanta.... you know you want to..
Read JoeBlank's Story Hour According to Hoyle

not to spoil it... but...

i'll be your Huckleberry...err... referee...

Good advice, although it is more howandwhy99's story hour now than it is mine, since he has done such a great job taking over writing duties. And others have contributed as well, making it a group project.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

That seems like a really harsh rule. You must have quite a large pool of potential players to choose from if you institute a rule like that. And your players must either be very very good friends with you, or not friends at all.

I tend to run with friends tho i try and bring in one new player per campaign. i have always had more people than i can run for even with running two campaigns at a time for most of 25ish years.

So, yeah, i probably do have a larger pool than some of players to draw from.\

However, even with a small group, i find having "better players" (defined as those whose play style is at least compatable with the others) preferable to having "more players".

Don't you?

That sort of ruling would be likely to result in some hurt feelings.

Stated up front before a game is begun with everyone entering knowing those are the rules?

Well, anything "can" result in hurt feelings to some, even things like "but you are enforicng the rules on me?" kind of things.

I think GMing always has to find a balance between a "my way or the highway" mentality and being able to still have a game where the players can run their characters the way they want. It's always better to have a talk with the player in question than to simply kick them out of the game, don't you think?

Well, no. I have had players whose style were incompatable and their characters and actions were inappropriate. i had talks with him. I had several talks with him. At every talk, he was ogh so conciliatory and oh so understanding and all that and every time the talk ended with him still playing he showed up next session and was worse... cuz what he took from the talk was "yeah the gm will yack a while but i can keep on having fun" and so, you know, eventually i got the idea that its not always better to talk with someone.

At some point, the talking has to stop and something needs to be done.

Now, if you somehow took my suggestion to mean that the first the player would hear of this rule or the issues with his play style was when he got kicked, then you misunderstood.

But in my day i have encountered more than a few players whose "backpack full of characters" meant to them they could run as ridiculous a character in terms of choices and actions they wanted, had no reason to act "reasonably" and felt that if one character got killed they would always be able to bring in a "reload".

For some, this manifested in "so my character does suicidal things" but for others it also equated to "and my character can be as much of a jerk even to the other player characters as i want and they just have to deal" and so forth.

Once, when i was a player, we had such a guy. After a while and yet more talking and talking in character and out, my character who was the most patient of the lot said "enough is enough" and we as a group of characters kicked his character out for his actions. We basically said "this isn't working, please leave."

The Gm, however, after another round of talking, scripted that character back in by NPC machination the next session over the PCs wishes (and in fact over the players.) it got a lot worse. The Gm assured us that the character was going to be better since he had been watned by NPCs to get along. What he failed to realize was that the player did not give a rats behind about the risk to his character. As long as he got to take his weekly shots at disruption at the other players, he was happy. It got worse.

 

[DonTadow]

I see where the author of this thread is coming from. If they do it every single time it becomes cliche and the heroicness is loss. (it's like their fishinig to be the hero ). But you can't determine how a player likes to play his character. I've run into this problem where I have several high upity priests whom are do gooders traveling with a party of save my own self (help out if it benefits me) people.

Perhaps you set up encounters that all goals can be achieved. For instance, my party is currently searching for a Yuan-ti temple. Two of them are do gooders of the church out to find the culprits responsible for the illness of the high Nomarch. The other 4 could care less about the Nomarch, they need some valuable diamond ore once rumored to be mined by he Yuan-ti. The hard part is keeping them together after this, but I'll come to that bridge when i cross it as I expect this to last a month or two. I have ideas but its no guarantee anyone's making it out.

 

[DonTadow]

Well, no. I have had players whose style were incompatable and their characters and actions were inappropriate. i had talks with him. I had several talks with him. At every talk, he was ogh so conciliatory and oh so understanding and all that and every time the talk ended with him still playing he showed up next session and was worse... cuz what he took from the talk was "yeah the gm will yack a while but i can keep on having fun" and so, you know, eventually i got the idea that its not always better to talk with someone.

At some point, the talking has to stop and something needs to be done.


Once, when i was a player, we had such a guy. After a while and yet more talking and talking in character and out, my character who was the most patient of the lot said "enough is enough" and we as a group of characters kicked his character out for his actions. We basically said "this isn't working, please leave."

The Gm, however, after another round of talking, scripted that character back in by NPC machination the next session over the PCs wishes (and in fact over the players.) it got a lot worse. The Gm assured us that the character was going to be better since he had been watned by NPCs to get along. What he failed to realize was that the player did not give a rats behind about the risk to his character. As long as he got to take his weekly shots at disruption at the other players, he was happy. It got worse.

That sounds horrible and that is a situation you tell someone the campaign isn't for them. However, I don't think this author's campaign might require these extreme methods--- yet. I save expulsion and xp enalities for more serious tasks.

In my campaign, if a character dies your next character comes in one level below the lowest level in the party. That is my way of implying an additional penalty on death. You can try other penalities on death that might work. I don't think this is discouraging their play as it is making sure that if and when they die for something they die for something important. My players know that if any character falls below a certain level they can't possibly stay with the campaign, perhaps this can be emphasised. Or if they do stay they fall to that of a cohort.