Player, DM, or PC call? (longish)

[redknight]

Another option would have been that when you released that no one could disarm traps, modifiy the dungeon on the fly. Perhaps the traps were not so deadly or perhaps they weren't there at all. Through another encounter at them instead (roleplaying or combat).

I find that often I have to slightly modify dungeons to match the party. If there are no clerics, I provide the chance to get healing (potions etc) If there are no rogues, I reduce the number of traps. etc.

There were action as the GM that you could have taken to ease the problem. I fail to see how it is the players fault for staying in character.

 

[Afrodyte]

When I play rogues, I tend to prefer the more social rogues as well. I really don't like playing the "thief" or the "trap disabler." Had I been the player in that situation, I too would have been upset. I would have been upset with the other players for holding me (the player) accountable for not playing the character they wanted me to play, and I would have been upset with you for docking me XP because I didn't play the character you wanted me to play. I agree with the previous poster who said that if you want to fill a particular niche in the party, do it yourself instead of asking somebody else to sacrifice playing what they want.

From what I have read, only the rogue's player responded appropriately to the situation. What person in their right mind would intentionally wander into a death trap knowing full well they are not equipped or knowledgable enough to deal with it? What good character would force somebody into that situation?

Really, I think the issue here is respect. If you really want to solve the real problem in the game, you have to address that. From what you've written so far, I seems clear you do not respect this person or his girlfriend. I won't even begin telling you how you can fix that because I'm not familiar with the whole situation. I do see, however, that if you want to prevent future hardship, you are going to have to be a bit more forthcoming with your feelings regarding this player.

 

[ZSutherland]

Thanks David, that little bit of sugar made the Agback's necessary but bitter medicine go down a bit easier.

Yes, I share some of the blame here. As Red Knight pointed out, I could have removed the traps. In fact, I thought about it (just as I thought about suggesting to them that they go get Milo). It would fit my MO, but their request before we started was a harder campaign. They don't want to be coddled anymore. Okay, so I didn't coddle them. Perhaps I should have done so anyway in this case, and we've not yet found that balance between how much they want to be coddled by the DM and how much they don't. That much I can easily discuss with them and we can come to a conclussion.

I've decided that before the next session, I'm going to start an open discussion OOC about what went wrong last time with the caveat that there's no finger pointing. We'll go around the table and say what we each individually could have done differently. I'll start with, "I could have modified the dungeon when I figured out you didn't have anyone with DD, or suggested OOC that you go back and get Milo." And then lead the discussion around the table. When it gets back to me, I'll say, "Okay, discuss, but you can't bring up anything that someone else didn't mention in their self-critique."

This will hopefully a) bring out that everyone bore some responsibility in what went wrong including me and that no one person is to blame and b) cool off the angry players while still (hopefully bringing up to the accused player what his mistakes as well). If necessary, at the end, I'll go back and mention some things I think they missed as a critique of how they could do better in the future. I may even give out a little bit of bonus exp for insightful responses.

Does anyone think that this is a better idea?

P.S. - Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread, but I only have internet at work, and I was slammed most of the day today.

P.P.S - I went back and looked over my notes about last game (wrote the original post here at work) last night and recalled that some things were not quite as I remembered them. When asked if they wanted to take Milo, the other players asked the rogue in question if he thought we needed Milo and he said no. They took him at his word. Second, they didn't bully him into opening the door. They were in a room with four doors and when they discovered that one was trapped, they decided to try the others. He opted w/o warning anyone to open the door himself. It was after that that they tried to threaten him to get him to scout ahead, which he refused to do, hence the other problems. The other time he put them at risk was when confronted with a riddle that had to be answered out loud, they were all trying to work through it together except him. The riddle implied that a wrong answer would lead to disaster, but he blithely and again w/o warning or consulting them shouted out an answer. Turns out he was right, but I think that's when they started to get irked with him.

Z

 

[Agback]

G'day

I think that the post-mortem discussion you suggest is a much better idea. And your format seems like a good one: I would suggest that you be strict about giving everyone a chance to acknowledge their own errors before you allow anyone to mention any error of anyone else's. The more blame you heap on yourself in these things, the better your chances of coming out unscathed. So think about mentioning judgment calls that you think on reflection were correct, but that others might have to think about before they agree with you. But don't go over the top, because you don't want your players to realise that you are making faults up to duck the sting. If they do they will follow suit with increasing blatantness--which might lead to healing laughter, but is a bit risky.

I think you are right to let the result stand, even though someone is upset about losing a character. The game is simply more enjoyable when the risks are real, or at least believable. I think it is worth letting the chips lie where they fall, even when the 'wrong' player suffers. It is well worth learning the lessons that our mistakes and goof-offs can hurt other people.

Regards,


Agback