Wippit Guud
First Post
Tsyr said:
Hope?
If he was one hit from going down, it turns into a life and death situation.
As to what the PsiWar did, have to wait to get info fromt he DM on that.
The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!
- Thread starter arbados
- Start date
Hope?
If he was one hit from going down, it turns into a life and death situation.
As to what the PsiWar did, have to wait to get info fromt he DM on that.
Tsyr
Explorer
Wippit Guud said:
If the PsyWar waited until he was one hit from death at level 12 to call for help, he screwed up. Plain and simple. This is doubly true when he is dealing with a character that he KNOWS is slow to act, if he acts at all.
I'm not saying the druid is blameless. But the player of the PsyWar has to accept some of the blame too.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
To me, there is a big difference between:
1) A character whose choices of feats, skills, spells and roleplaying make him a less-than-optimal character for purposes of combat.
and
2) A character who does nothing to contribute to the party overcoming their foes on a given round of combat.
If they are behaving like #2 (
) on a regular basis, there is a problem. The problem is that the foes the party faces are not going to divert any resources to counter someone that does not need countering. If the Druid is a threat to them in ANY way, they should be trying to attack him or cast a spell on him or move toward him or do SOMETHING to counter him. That is one less resource that is being used against the rest of the party and allows them a better chance of defeating the enemy.
So, to me, this has almost nothing to do with whether the Druid is melee-effective or not. It has to do with how many rounds during the average combat that the Druid is saying, "I can't do anything."
1) A character whose choices of feats, skills, spells and roleplaying make him a less-than-optimal character for purposes of combat.
and
2) A character who does nothing to contribute to the party overcoming their foes on a given round of combat.
If they are behaving like #2 (
) on a regular basis, there is a problem. The problem is that the foes the party faces are not going to divert any resources to counter someone that does not need countering. If the Druid is a threat to them in ANY way, they should be trying to attack him or cast a spell on him or move toward him or do SOMETHING to counter him. That is one less resource that is being used against the rest of the party and allows them a better chance of defeating the enemy.So, to me, this has almost nothing to do with whether the Druid is melee-effective or not. It has to do with how many rounds during the average combat that the Druid is saying, "I can't do anything."
Pielorinho said:
People who question this should take a look at Everquest. Any bigger raid stands and falls with leadeship - or more correct, the ability of the players to follow orders. Back when I played it I was constantly amazed how many problems people had just doing what they were told to - or not doing things they were told not to. Basic common sense for anyone with a minimum of army training, but not very common among the high-level players back when I played - who were often the very ones bragging about their experience.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Let's look at it from a metagame point of view.
The classic D&D PC group is founded upon mutual cooperation for the survival of the group. Yes, in the near 25 years I've gamed, I've seen infighting and (literal, in the game world) backstabbing amongst characters based on the lack of such cooperation. Much of it that I've seen resulted from behavior that has been justified as stemming from roleplaying. The problem is - and bear in mind that this all anecdotal, so I'm not saying it's universal; but I've seen it happen in various groups from different places over the course of two and half decades - I've never seen anything but hard feelings result from it.
Anyway, once players realize that they can't rely on, or trust, another player to at least attempt to pick up the slack with his character, the fun of the game becomes diminished for them. That's my experience.
Roleplaying is fun, I agree. However, I think players should try to adjust their roleplaying goals to fit the group they choose to game with. If they don't wish to do so, it may be worthwhile to seek out another group whose goals more closely match one's own.
I was recently playing in a Call of Cthulhu d20 campaign. One player, who was, and is, liked as a person outside the game, was hated as a player while playing. His PC's refusal to work with the rest of the group consistently caused problems, to the point that two PCs were killed as a direct result (including mine), effectively ending the campaign for those players. The rest of the players (including the Keeper) seem to have finally gotten fed up, because the last time I checked (I don't go every week, being dead and all ), another PC finally killed the PC in question. Hard feelings, of course, resulted. The player did remain consistent in his roleplaying, as did the rest of the players. The trouble was, it resulted in people not getting the kind of enjoyment from the game that they wished to get. Which reinforces, in y opinion, the need for players to adjust to the group they're in, or find a group in which they don't need to adjuest as much. It's a game, after all, and everyone is there to have fun.
The classic D&D PC group is founded upon mutual cooperation for the survival of the group. Yes, in the near 25 years I've gamed, I've seen infighting and (literal, in the game world) backstabbing amongst characters based on the lack of such cooperation. Much of it that I've seen resulted from behavior that has been justified as stemming from roleplaying. The problem is - and bear in mind that this all anecdotal, so I'm not saying it's universal; but I've seen it happen in various groups from different places over the course of two and half decades - I've never seen anything but hard feelings result from it.
Anyway, once players realize that they can't rely on, or trust, another player to at least attempt to pick up the slack with his character, the fun of the game becomes diminished for them. That's my experience.
Roleplaying is fun, I agree. However, I think players should try to adjust their roleplaying goals to fit the group they choose to game with. If they don't wish to do so, it may be worthwhile to seek out another group whose goals more closely match one's own.
I was recently playing in a Call of Cthulhu d20 campaign. One player, who was, and is, liked as a person outside the game, was hated as a player while playing. His PC's refusal to work with the rest of the group consistently caused problems, to the point that two PCs were killed as a direct result (including mine), effectively ending the campaign for those players. The rest of the players (including the Keeper) seem to have finally gotten fed up, because the last time I checked (I don't go every week, being dead and all
), another PC finally killed the PC in question. Hard feelings, of course, resulted. The player did remain consistent in his roleplaying, as did the rest of the players. The trouble was, it resulted in people not getting the kind of enjoyment from the game that they wished to get. Which reinforces, in y opinion, the need for players to adjust to the group they're in, or find a group in which they don't need to adjuest as much. It's a game, after all, and everyone is there to have fun.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
And the original poster's take is?
And what does the original poster think and how has the druid's condition gone now that En World has spoken with it's many hydra like heads, some of which can't stop biting at one another?
And what does the original poster think and how has the druid's condition gone now that En World has spoken with it's many hydra like heads, some of which can't stop biting at one another?
I read page 1 and 4... so this may have been covered.
This is NOT a Gm issue, other than to say it involves his player's enjoyment.
I have found that when players have a problem with how someone else is playing their character, its best to have them work it out IN CHARACTER.
There is one key element you may need to get across to the player and everyone: There is NO guarantee that they keep their characters. If "the party" decides they don't want your character along, then that character is no longer along. Its your responsibility to provide them with as much of a reason for them to go into danger with/for you as they give you reasons to go with them.
often players will develop an "i am one of the players so they have to take my character along" mentality. This mentality can very easily result in the player not worrying about typical social dynamics. Real characters often compromise and give and take in order to make relationships and groups work because they need to. If a player thinks "player status" substitutes for "making myself a valuable member" then that may well be part of your problem.
An in character resolution would likey begin with one character talking to "his friend" about the problem and seeing how he can help beyond just bringing it to his attention. (yeah this is low key for a problem which has already produced fatalities but up until now the players seem to be expecting the GM to handle it.)
Then i would expect a bigger party response if it doesn't get better followed by simply letting him go and looking for a more productive party member.
Whether the PLAYER gets to bring in a new character would depend on whether you think this is a character thing or a player thing.
I would recommend against trying to solve this with XP or treasure penalties or any other GM action IN GAME... that only reinforces the notion of "party interaction" being a GM issue not a player character issue.
This is NOT a Gm issue, other than to say it involves his player's enjoyment.
I have found that when players have a problem with how someone else is playing their character, its best to have them work it out IN CHARACTER.
There is one key element you may need to get across to the player and everyone: There is NO guarantee that they keep their characters. If "the party" decides they don't want your character along, then that character is no longer along. Its your responsibility to provide them with as much of a reason for them to go into danger with/for you as they give you reasons to go with them.
often players will develop an "i am one of the players so they have to take my character along" mentality. This mentality can very easily result in the player not worrying about typical social dynamics. Real characters often compromise and give and take in order to make relationships and groups work because they need to. If a player thinks "player status" substitutes for "making myself a valuable member" then that may well be part of your problem.
An in character resolution would likey begin with one character talking to "his friend" about the problem and seeing how he can help beyond just bringing it to his attention. (yeah this is low key for a problem which has already produced fatalities but up until now the players seem to be expecting the GM to handle it.)
Then i would expect a bigger party response if it doesn't get better followed by simply letting him go and looking for a more productive party member.
Whether the PLAYER gets to bring in a new character would depend on whether you think this is a character thing or a player thing.
I would recommend against trying to solve this with XP or treasure penalties or any other GM action IN GAME... that only reinforces the notion of "party interaction" being a GM issue not a player character issue.
arbados
Explorer
Arbados the original poster is back again (and thanks for the replies they have been great):
The druid has two animal companions which he does not have tag along on missions unless they accamodate the creatures natural habitat.
One is an owl (WISE!) which he lets remain within its lands to offer him information on the happenings while he is away adventuring. He also requests the owl to send messages to allies, but basically just has Wise keep him up-to-date on things which the he may not have seen in his home land during his adventures.
Second is his wolf (not dire, but awakened) which he has had as a companion for a very long time. The druid has a very close bond with this animal and even though he knows that he can befriend a stronger companion, does not wish to for the fact that he wishes to keep this special bond with THORNFUR (the wolf's name).
Thornfur journeys with the group on occasion, but only when the druid feels he will be most beneficial and within his natural surroundings.
Additionally, the druids mentor has recently had many problems with some oppositional druids and the druid within the party chose to send Thornfur (the wolf) to her to offer assistance if needed. Eventually the party druid is traveling back to his mentor to aid in the situation with the oppositional druid faction, however, he feels that the matter dealing with the drow needs more immediate attention.
So, as for animal companions, he has them, but they are more for garnering information and the druid makes sure that their lives are not unjustly jeapordized (like his I guess). Good roleplaying I feel, although the party misses out on some offensive aid by the companions.
The Psychic Warrior did use his repertoire of powers to aid in in the battle with the drow. He did not necessarily know that he would fall the next round of attacks, but did take on a bit of a risk. He did not take a defensive stance and I know from speaking with him that he thought that he would receive some aid from the druid through healing and thus continued his assault on the drow.
Keep in mind that the other members, the wizard and rogue, were heavily participating in the battle using spells and ranged attacks. Their attacks were needed for there was a large force of drow, which if broke through the ranks of the devoted defender and psychic warrior would have probably taken them down quickly.
Of the three outside of melee the druid is felt to be by the other players (and probably is) the the least at risk of getting severely hampered close to the melee mix. The healing scrolls and potions were depleted and the druids spells were the only left.
What this post has shown me and the other players is that there is NO decisive right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the druid's actions were unjust. Problem is still there to the fact that the druid does these actions frequently.
We play tomorrow and I will let you know how the players try to resolve this. I am going to allow the other players the opportunity to offer some more suggestions to the druid and I also told them that they should look at all the druids actions within a battle for they may be remembering the ones which had a negative impact, but not taking into consideration all the other positive actions that he had performed.
We can all agree that it is a lot easier recalling that one bad action then all the good ones that had happened previously.
The druid has two animal companions which he does not have tag along on missions unless they accamodate the creatures natural habitat.
One is an owl (WISE!) which he lets remain within its lands to offer him information on the happenings while he is away adventuring. He also requests the owl to send messages to allies, but basically just has Wise keep him up-to-date on things which the he may not have seen in his home land during his adventures.
Second is his wolf (not dire, but awakened) which he has had as a companion for a very long time. The druid has a very close bond with this animal and even though he knows that he can befriend a stronger companion, does not wish to for the fact that he wishes to keep this special bond with THORNFUR (the wolf's name).
Thornfur journeys with the group on occasion, but only when the druid feels he will be most beneficial and within his natural surroundings.
Additionally, the druids mentor has recently had many problems with some oppositional druids and the druid within the party chose to send Thornfur (the wolf) to her to offer assistance if needed. Eventually the party druid is traveling back to his mentor to aid in the situation with the oppositional druid faction, however, he feels that the matter dealing with the drow needs more immediate attention.
So, as for animal companions, he has them, but they are more for garnering information and the druid makes sure that their lives are not unjustly jeapordized (like his I guess). Good roleplaying I feel, although the party misses out on some offensive aid by the companions.
The Psychic Warrior did use his repertoire of powers to aid in in the battle with the drow. He did not necessarily know that he would fall the next round of attacks, but did take on a bit of a risk. He did not take a defensive stance and I know from speaking with him that he thought that he would receive some aid from the druid through healing and thus continued his assault on the drow.
Keep in mind that the other members, the wizard and rogue, were heavily participating in the battle using spells and ranged attacks. Their attacks were needed for there was a large force of drow, which if broke through the ranks of the devoted defender and psychic warrior would have probably taken them down quickly.
Of the three outside of melee the druid is felt to be by the other players (and probably is) the the least at risk of getting severely hampered close to the melee mix. The healing scrolls and potions were depleted and the druids spells were the only left.
What this post has shown me and the other players is that there is NO decisive right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the druid's actions were unjust. Problem is still there to the fact that the druid does these actions frequently.
We play tomorrow and I will let you know how the players try to resolve this. I am going to allow the other players the opportunity to offer some more suggestions to the druid and I also told them that they should look at all the druids actions within a battle for they may be remembering the ones which had a negative impact, but not taking into consideration all the other positive actions that he had performed.
We can all agree that it is a lot easier recalling that one bad action then all the good ones that had happened previously.
Tsyr
Explorer
arbados said:
Does he have a reason for not fighting defensivly?
I mean, from everything you have told us, he has no reason to believe he would recieve immediate healing from the druid... It doesn't fit the druids pattern. Sure, he can say he expected healing, but that doesn't mean he had any reason to do so... It sounds like he was making some pretty unsafe bets given the healer's attitudes, and not doing anything really to increase his odds... like, say, fighting defensive... If I was that low on hitpoints (to where one hit could fell me), I would be fighting defensivly, even if I was pretty sure healing was comming.
Similar Threads
