Dead Again

[Lanefan]

My reaction is a mega-ditto to Quartz... Where the heck are the other characters?

D&D is a Heroic game. This fellow plays Heroes. I'd welcome him to my group in the blink of an eye.

Seconded, as someone who tends to play exactly the same style when running a tank.

Sounds to me like the other players are letting their characters advance at cost of this guy dying. Way to beat that: tweak the way you give out ExP, so if you don't take the risk you don't get the reward. That way, the cowards either have to engage or not level up...

Lanefan

 

[Jhulae]

My reaction is a mega-ditto to Quartz... Where the heck are the other characters?

D&D is a Heroic game. This fellow plays Heroes. I'd welcome him to my group in the blink of an eye.

I've played a front line fighter type in a group with two other front line fighters and *still* ended up getting no support from the rest of the party. I've also gotten screwed when I've tried to help the Fighters who've taken tons of damage and need healing.

So, after this happened a few times, I created a Warlock. With Eldritch Spear. So I can attack from up to 250' away.

I learned my lesson for this particular group. Don't play a 'hero'. Maybe the OP's player needs to learn that too.

 

[Greylock]

In groups or situations like that, I've gotten used to rolling up the occasional new character, trying new and stranger things each time.

My current DM figured me out early... and unfortunately in my current group over half are new players, who are far, far too attached to their characters. The DM's solution is sometimes to take "heroic" characters [I'm not the only one] out of action early, sometimes by wounds sometimes by tactics, but not deliver a killing blow. That doesn't happen in every fight, or even in every session, but when it does, it shakes the "new kids" to their boots. Forces them to get close in, or get damned creative.

 

[cougent]

This seems to be (as almost all of them do) a lack of communication issue. The players are playing as just that: Individual players. They need to learn to act as a squad / unit with individual elements to accomplish a common goal. To that end there should proabably be some give and take from both the hero player and the cautious party.

I would suggest as DM that you bring up the issue of the two different styles of play, tell them they need to work it out amongst themselves as a player issues, and as you are walking out of the room for a few minutes tell them to call you when they have.

I must disagree with others above that you should try to force the party to support what to them may seem like reckless behavior from the individual. Were I a cautious (or even cowardly if you want to be cruel) player and my DM tried to force me (aka railroad) to support a single player who leaps into battle at the drop of a hat; I would probably not be with that game for long.

On the other hand though, neither would I as a DM try to tell my hero player to become a coward (or cautious to be nice). I might suggest that he develop better strategies and tactics to truly be the hero he clearly wants to be. As the OP insinuated, being "told" to not play the hero as I wanted to play would not sit well with me either.

That is why I suggested that the DM actually recuse himself other than attempting to force the players to work this out amongst themselves, it is a conflict of play styles and if the DM sides with either, you are probably going to offend / loose someone. If they hash it out amongst themselves then they derive their own answers and compromises and are (somewhat) content with them.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Perhaps tailoring the encounters a bit to the player who is acting like a hero and adventurer isn't a bad thing. Maybe using an action point mechanic to reward heroic effort might give him some survivability. Meanwhile if the other adventurers don't do anything resembling a heroic action they don't get squat.

 

[Corsair]

Heroes are remembered in song and legend... after they die.

 

[Urbannen]

I think that one problem is that the players are not familiar with higher level characters and campaigns. I've played in them, so I have a good feel as to what is a challenge or not, and I personally am very familiar with the cleric spell list.

Obviously, they do not work together as a team. It was especially blatant when we only had two players instead of the three now. The player mentioned was a kick down the door, run at 'em type of player. The other one was averse to danger with his aasimar cleric 7/paladin 2 and sorcerer 8 cohort. I have looked on in amazement as "fighter" player would run forward to be the only target against powerful enemies without any understanding with the other player that he would receive backup. The cleric/paladin's first reaction to any threat seems to be to cast searing light, when he's such a powerful combatant his first reaction should be to fight. I have been dismayed by the other player's fearfulness and inability to use his cleric effectively. The third player is more of a balance between caution and action. I would say that they have a poor ability to assess danger.

When the character went down AGAIN, the other characters said "We thought you were doing okay." based on their out-of-character knowledge. The player who lost three rounds to just getting helplessly wailed on didn't even say "I need help."

They really did not plan their attack on the drow headquarters well. They had a small army of freed slaves they were barely controlling, and their plan was to have them climb one by one into this cavern in the side of the chasm to attack an enemy that was ready for them. One PC and cohort in the front, another in the middle of the slaves, and two in the back for "crowd control". It didn't work too well. I finally just reminded the third player that he had a wand of fly.

I've realized that these guys are not very capable of handling anything too tough and that they really enjoy easy encounters. I have nerfed CotSQ to make it survivable and easier (that said, CotSQ's suggested starting level of 10 is laughable). Probably they don't have much experience with higher-level play, but we're playing CotSQ for now. Higher-level play is tough. I've made numerous hints to the cleric-player about spells, but they've gone unheeded. Now I'm just going to tell the players what to do in situations in which they're blatantly clueless. Still, the players often have good ideas, and the cleric's sorcerer cohort is the most powerful member of the party with some wicked spells choices.

I think 3.5 is complicated, and I said I'm happy to play a simpler system, but everyone likes their sourcebooks, you know.

Once somebody dies, they lose one proportional level with their new character, with a minimum level of 10. There has to be a penalty for dying. This penalty is just exacerbated when it gets applied successively.

 

[Peni Griffin]

Everybody in this party sounds suboptimal to me - including the DM. When somebody drops, drag it out, don't just go - oh, he's alone back there and he dropped to 0, he's dead! Dribble away those negative points round by round, nice and loud; have the drow take prisoners for interrogation; give him the chance, as a vampire, to reinstate himself in the party ("I escaped in an epic solo session; it was cool.") and get revenge on those who deserted him! Make death painful and the consequences of defeat interesting. If the DM is apathetic and resigned, the players will be, too.

Playing the hero is not wrong. Playing the coward is not wrong. Playing good tactics is not wrong; playing poor tactics is not wrong. Playing half-heartedly leads directly to not having fun, and that's as close to wrong as you get in a game.

 

[Urbannen]

As a matter of fact, the vampire did come back, but was defeated by the party. Technically he couldn't reinstate himself into the party because he was under the control of the vampire who made him.

I just shared this story because I thought it was funny, frankly. It's true I'm apathetic as a DM because my philosophy is that I have to play out the consequences of the players' choices. And I don't fudge rolls - that definitely makes me resigned. And without fudging, "dragging it out" is not always possible. Remember the first time, the guy commanded his cohort to leave him and told the other party members to also run for it. If they do it, it's not my business. Hopefully this guy will learn that any chance of certain death is too high if you have a viable escape option.

Up until now I thought I also had to let the players come up with their own strategies. I've had to change that attitude. "Coaching" is now part of my DM arsenal. And by that I mean simple stuff, like telling them about spells that are in the PHB or reminding them of items they are already carrying. Not all the time, of course.

I've asked them if they want to do something beside CotSQ, but they say they like it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Sounds like the player needs to learn from his mistakes.

In all three instances, the player seems to be taking action that reflects heroism as it is portrayed in books and movies. The current edition of D&D penalizes cinematic action that isn't carefully planned within the confines of the game's tactical rules, so things like chandelier swinging and or rushing into a combat, sword swinging, are less likely to make a protagonist look heroic than they are to kill said protagonist outright. Talk to your player about this. It is important for him to understand that, as a game, D&D places a value on tactics over cinematic flair. Cinematic flair is supported, of course, but only so long as it falls within the perameters of the game's tactical rules.