The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[Pielorinho]

While I am a staunch supporter of roleplaying, I would have told the druid player to get his PC to the PsyWar

Hmm....that seems a little heavy-handed to me. While I'd never tell a player what to do with their PC, I might say something like this:

Player: I cast barkskin on myself.
Me: Are you sure? The psychic warrior, who just called to you, has a pretty big gash opening up his torso, and he's not looking very good; you'd guess that another hit might kill him.
Player: I'm sure.
Me: Okey Dokey.
Psychic Warrior's player: Can I shout something?
Me: Sure, if it's short.
PW Player: Druid! Get your rackin frackin butt over here NOW!

I'll also say that it's repugnant to me to talk about punishing my friends. This is first and foremost a fun activity for me to engage in with people I like, and I'm not going to look for ways to make their lives unpleasant. If I disagree with something they do in-game, I'll try to make it very clear to them that it's an in-character conflict, and I'll try to make sure that we're both having fun playing through this in-character conflict.

When you start talking about punishments, well, you become someone I don't want to hang out with anymore. Friends don't punish friends.

Daniel

 

[Fenes 2]

As far as I understood it the PsyWar was asking for help - and the Druid did not help. I don't know about others, but in such situations I expect the player of the druid to step over his shadow and have his PC save the PsyWar. It is not about participating in combat - it is about letting a comrade die. I'd not expect the druid to melee, I'd not even expect him to cast combat spells - but I would expect him to risk a hit or two to save a comrade from death.

 

[The Blue Elf]

You analogy is flawed in that the support people whom you refer to are REMFs. They don't act as part of the actual sharp end of the spear, and have no business being anywhere near combat. If they do wonder into the combat zone, they become a liability because they don't have the aptitute and training to keep themselves alive. Thus, someone else has to put himself in danger to keep them alive. This druid is a REMF. He should be treated as a REMF, and left behind. If he wants to be part of the combat team (reaping the rewards of treasure and experience), he had better act like one.

buzzard

I remember someone that plays just like Driud caused a lot of same problems as him but it was a wizard in the party that kind of did the samething.The only issue with him everytime he when someone needed help he just cast a stupid Globe of Invurablity on himself, I can understand his alignment that he is playing but still that just stupid.

 

[likuidice]

true, but if a companion goes down, it should be a team effort to get him back up again, the party should should not rely on a single character to do the job, especially if the others, as has been pointed out, were unengaged.

 

[Fenes 2]

Hmm....that seems a little heavy-handed to me. While I'd never tell a player what to do with their PC, I might say something like this:

Player: I cast barkskin on myself.
Me: Are you sure? The psychic warrior, who just called to you, has a pretty big gash opening up his torso, and he's not looking very good; you'd guess that another hit might kill him.
Player: I'm sure.
Me: Okey Dokey.
Psychic Warrior's player: Can I shout something?
Me: Sure, if it's short.
PW Player: Druid! Get your rackin frackin butt over here NOW!

I was talking as a player, not as a DM. As a DM I would tell the druid player straight: "It looks like the PsyWar will be dead as soon as the enemy can get another blow in. If you don't heal him now it will be too late. Do you really want to cast barkskin instead of a cure spell?"

I'll also say that it's repugnant to me to talk about punishing my friends. This is first and foremost a fun activity for me to engage in with people I like, and I'm not going to look for ways to make their lives unpleasant. If I disagree with something they do in-game, I'll try to make it very clear to them that it's an in-character conflict, and I'll try to make sure that we're both having fun playing through this in-character conflict.

When you start talking about punishments, well, you become someone I don't want to hang out with anymore. Friends don't punish friends.

As a friend to a friend I'd tell the druid player that my fun would be ruined if he did let the PsyWar die, and I would expect him to care about that. Friends don't ruin friends' enjoyment of the game.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting thread! Let's all keep away from personal attacks and keep it open.

I 100% support the druid's right to do whatever he wants, for whatever reasons he has, as long as those reasons are in character. I also 100% support the right of the rest of the pcs to do what they want, to react to the druid, again, as long as it's done in character.

If the druid doesn't like fighting and is concerned that he's gonna get chudded if he steps into range (possibly a very valid concern), and the rest of the party has a problem with this, there are basically three options:

1. Talk to the druid. Explain the bad feelings he's helping cause (everyone helps cause them, really; it isn't any one individual's choice) and what the rest of the party expects from him ("you need to heal us when we yell for healing!").

2. Plan for the druid's behavior. Realize that you have to drop back to him to get that cure spell slapped on you and don't count on him to come up to you. Adapt the tactics you use accordingly. Heck, this might cause something to happen that teaches the druid to be more aggressive (the Drow break through the front line).

3. Leave the druid behind. Either tell him it's not working out and walk away, or leave him in the night without explanation. Letting him know what's up might be better. Then have the player roll up a new character and explain that he'll be repeating the process every four games unless his character is one that the group feels contributes enough to the party to be worth a share of treasure.

In fact, treasure division is another (heavy-handed) way to influence the behavior of other party members. If you divide the treasure up and only give him a half share he'll probably get the picture. Of course, lawful characters bound by a contract prolly can't get away with this too much.

In any case, I don't think it's the dm's place to get involved. It's an in-character issue; it should be solved in character. If it turns out to be a player issue (say you guys kick the druid out and four characters in a row are all cowardly and useless and stuff) then you'll have to talk to the player, and then it becomes more of the dm's province.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'd also like to point out that at the levels the characters are at, death is rarely ever permanent. So no one's fun has been ruined. Thats just a lame excuse.

Yes, I imagine that most groups try and work as a well oiled team but not every group does that. It seems that most of you are just dead set on putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Druids player.

 

[Pielorinho]

I was talking as a player, not as a DM. As a DM I would tell the druid player straight: "It looks like the PsyWar will be dead as soon as the enemy can get another blow in. If you don't heal him now it will be too late. Do you really want to cast barkskin instead of a cure spell?"

Ah! I misunderstood you. Sorry!

As a friend to a friend I'd tell the druid player that my fun would be ruined if he did let the PsyWar die, and I would expect him to care about that. Friends don't ruin friends' enjoyment of the game.

That makes sense, although I think in this case it's too late for that. At this point, as I've said before, I think it's a good occasion to talk as players about what happened and about what people didn't enjoy during the scene. In fact, if a character is gonna seek retribution against the druid, it's a good idea to give a heads-up to the druid's player at this point, and tell him that the more the druid shows remorse, the less angry the wronged character will be at the druid.

In other words, it's a good idea to block out in-character conflicts a little bit, to make it clear to everyone that this won't become a player conflict, and to make sure in advance that everyone is going to have fun with playing through the conflict.

Planning something to punish the druid's player via the character is what I find repugnant. You haven't been suggesting it, but other people have.

Daniel

 

[likuidice]

maybe try getting your party to give him their rings of protection and amulets of armour, after all, if he's not as well protected as the tanks he's going to be more reluctant to wade into melee. or offer the chance to multi into ranger, or get some items specially crafted to help the druid in melee, encourage him, but allow him to be a second line of defense, not a frontline, and only fight if he has no choice.

 

[buzzard]

fair point. but, does everyone in this party fight in melee? including the rogue and mage? if not, why are they not getting chewed out too? the character seems to work in combat by casting spells, he attacks if he's threatened, but doesn't otherwise engage in melee. just like a mage would do. he casts spells, doesn't appear to have shown any combat aptitude and the party knows how he fights, and their tactics should incorporate this, they should not constantly expect the character to do anything differently. and in the psywarrior example, he was 20 feet away from a guy who downed the most powerful warrior in the party, now this druid must have seen the p[sywar beat up no end of things, and he goes down to a superior combatant. the druid is supposed to wander in, and heal a companion that is twice the combatant he is? strangely, theres no mention of what the rogue or mage were doing in this encounter either, nor this kick ass npc. surely the mage could have pulled something to get the guy some breathing space? the rogue could have distracted the drow, the devoted defender, obviously not defending anyone, and therefore failing at his job description, could have held this beastly drow off for long enough, allowing the druid to heal his fallen ally? and if the druid was expected to be in combat, pulling his weight, why were his companions not whacking stuff too? we've heard a lot about the druid, but little about his companions.

The party was out of healing besides the Druid. It was his action or death. That is pretty much cut and dried. The mage and rogue were doing their combat jobs. The rogue was providing combat support with his bow and the mage was doing likewise with spells.

If, as a consquence of your fear of taking a scratch on your uninjured self, you let someone die, you are not a useful member of a team.

What I don't understand is why many people are trying so hard to shift the blame to someone else. The information, as we have had it related, supports a conclusion that the Druid is a cowardly, selfish git. There is essentially no reason for a party to desire his company. If the rogue or mage were not pulling their weight, there would be complaints. There are not, hence the conclusion that the Druid is the issue.

I rather question any presumption of the Druid's innocence when the best argument in his favor is attempting to blame everyone else.

buzzard