TPK : And you think you know whose fault it is...

[Bagpuss]

As another example, after the TPK, he is playing Bloodbowl with the DM. He manages to get a pass to a player beyond the DMs back row, and it is physically impossible for the DM's team to catch him as he runs to the end zone. Yet for some reason, rather than just ending his turn and scoring on his first action of his next turn, he spends nearly 5 minutes hemming and hawing over how to best injure as many of the other team as possible.

Ignoring his tactics in D&D, getting as many injuries on the other team before you score a touchdown is a great tactic in Bloodbowl. The fewer players the opponent has available next turn, and after kickoff the better.

 

[osarusan]

Hehe, sounds just like someone in my game... responsible for a TPK or two... always seems to do the EXACT wrong thing.

The way I tried to solve this problem was by telling the other players out-of-game to make sure they don't let him do any of the planning, and try to show him in-game why his ideas are just plain dumb.

It worked to an extent -- he stopped hurting the rest of the party and just ended up going through dozens of character sheets on his own. It was still frustrating to have him constantly die by stupidity, but at least it didn't interfere with the rest of the campaign any more.

 

[silentspace]

I agree with the posters above. But just to play devil's advocate, it could be that you are contributing to the problem

What do you do when you have someone in your party who is completely devoid of tactical acumen, and they nearly singlehandedly ruin every attempt at strategy you try to use?

Do you deal with him in person with the same kind of attitude you have here?

Over the course of the session, we got into 3 combats. In the first two, the human fighter was relatively useless. He spent most of the time attempting to fast dismount his camel and falling on his face in the sand, or spending entire rounds unstrapping his shield from the pack animals while the barbarian, wolf, and all the summoned critters I could find were getting bitten by ant-lions or con-drained by evil plants. My Augumented Hippogriffs carried the day for the most part in those fights, so it wasn't TOO big of a deal.

Sounds like you might be exagerating a bit. If he really spent most of his time attempting to fast dismount his camel, then the entire combat was over in the first round. Because attempting to dismount is a free action, and if you fail you dismount as a move action. You really sound sour. Fast dismounting is actually a smart thing to do. Better than not even trying it.

Are you exaggerating about the shield as well? If you're not, then you have a really bad DM. Nobody in their right mind would strap a shield to a camel in such a way that it takes several rounds to get it free. If that's what your DM is ruling that's just dumb. You should be upset with your DM, not the player.

Also, you come off a bit arrogant, saying how you singlehandedly saved the day in both combats. They sound like minor combats, if all it took was a 2nd level summon ally spell to finish, even augmented. But its hard to tell by your description.

In the third combat though, we are massively out numbered by gnolls, and I'm low on spells since I spent a bunch of level 2 slots healing con damage from the plant fight. We're doing ok for a while, with the barbarian and wolf dropping gnolls, and we're holding a decent defensive line... Then the human fighter (who by the way has the best AC in the group even without his armor on, with the gnolls needing 19s to hit him thanks to dex, magic shield, expertise, dodge-type feat, and some shield bonus feat) starts breaking ranks, letting the gnolls swarm in around our side and surround the rest of us.

Now he has a chance to redeem himself. He moves around the back of the group, and he can step up and flank the gnoll who is attacking the rear (where my poor unarmored druid is)... but instead of taking his last square of movement forward, he takes it BACKWARDS, farther away from us. This allows the gols to not only surround us, but also surround him. By the next round, the barbarian is on the ground in a crumpled heap. One round later, the human in question is out for the count. The druid manages to stick around another round thanks to a wand of CLW and help from his wolf, but they can't last againt the 12 or so gnolls surrounding them.

The shield sounds pretty important. Anyway, this is the only example you've given which I see as something that truly was a bad move. But who knows? He might have had a plan, and is too embarassed to say what it was. Or maybe he was trying to run. When a TPK is imminent, people start doing strange things.

Now this was a difficult encounter, and I don't completely blame one player since we probably would've gotten our butts kicked regardless, but when added to his oh-so-usefulness previously in the night, it bothered me.

As above, I question whether he was really useless in the other battles. Sometimes battles are over quick before some characters can contribute. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt based on your description.

Combine this with the fact that he's often easily distracted from whatever our goals are at the time by anything that even gives a hint of possible profit, and it makes for an annoying time.

Annoying for you, not necessarily for anyone else. You sound a bit like a control freak, you don't need to control the game, you are only one player. Maybe its you who needs to let go?

NEarly every time we try to accomplish something, we have to worry about him making some poor choice which either gets us killed, or makes life more difficult for the rest of us.

Now this is a serious statement. Can you give a real example? The short combats that your character finished before the fighter could contribute don't seem to count. And the TPK, well, all sorts of things could have gone wrong there. I'm not saying the TPK wasn't the player's fault, I'm just asking if you have another example.

As another example, after the TPK, he is playing Bloodbowl with the DM. He manages to get a pass to a player beyond the DMs back row, and it is physically impossible for the DM's team to catch him as he runs to the end zone. Yet for some reason, rather than just ending his turn and scoring on his first action of his next turn, he spends nearly 5 minutes hemming and hawing over how to best injure as many of the other team as possible.

Different game, not really an example. Also, it doesn't involve you. And yet you seem to be really worked up about it.

But just to play devil's advocate, since he already scored, what's wrong with trying to do it with flair?


Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to be attacking you, I'm just trying to see things from another viewpoint.

 

[twofalls]

Over the years I've discovered many things that work to help small groups get along. I don't mean to hijack your threat by explaining them, but rather to demonstrate how I've managed to minimize personality conflicts in the games I run.

I started my current primary game club with three of my very best friends. I decided how many folks I wanted to have in the game itself, then told my friends that they were permanent members of the group (because they all get along great). Then I explained that any of them could sponsor in other players that they knew and wanted to game with, and I was free to do the same. The sponsored players would get to game with us for three sessions, then there would be a secret vote and if any one person voted no (with no reason needing to be given) that sponsored player wouldn't be invited back. If all votes were yes, they became a full voting member. To remove a full voting member requires a 2/3 majority secret vote (generally without the knowledge by the individual in question), and even so I always try to go for a unanimous agreement.

The reason I go through all this is that gaming is what we do with the little free time we have to relax. No one should have to spend their liesure time gaming with an ass. All my group members have a very strong bond of friendship, and we have been gaming together like ths for 8 years now.

In conclusion, I feel its up to your GM to step forward and mediate the situation. He needs to be the leader (which is the role of the GM) and either create a workable solution, or ask you or the person you are at odds with to leave the game for the benefit of all the other players he is responsible for.

 

[Corsair]

Silent, I'll be happy to respond to your post, as you make some good points, and perhaps clarification on my side is in order.

Do you deal with him in person with the same kind of attitude you have here?

I do try to be civil to people in person. The downside to this is that when something bothers me, it tends to fester a bit until I get a chance to vent. None of the other players in my two groups come to this forum, so I use this as a place to vent and get opinions without hurting people's feelings.

Sounds like you might be exagerating a bit. If he really spent most of his time attempting to fast dismount his camel, then the entire combat was over in the first round. Because attempting to dismount is a free action, and if you fail you dismount as a move action. You really sound sour. Fast dismounting is actually a smart thing to do. Better than not even trying it.

Are you exaggerating about the shield as well? If you're not, then you have a really bad DM. Nobody in their right mind would strap a shield to a camel in such a way that it takes several rounds to get it free. If that's what your DM is ruling that's just dumb. You should be upset with your DM, not the player.

Let me add details: He is riding a pack animal, essentially bareback (no saddle). The DM ruled that because it was not equipped properly for combat, to attach the shield in such a way that it wouldn't be lost during travel would require a full round action to ready it (so effectively a move action to remove it from the camel, and a move action to ready it). This player has a tendency to care about survival first, and since he is without his armor in the desert, he always went for his shield first.

As for the length of combats, in one of the two camel-related encounters, he wasted a round trying to get his untrained camel to move into combat. The fast dismount the DM simply turned into a move action by saying "getting off fast is the easy part. Landing on your feet is tricky." As such, the "move action" which it turned into was him having to stand up after falling. He took a token 1 or 2 non-lethal from landing face first in the sand, but I think his pride was hurt more. The plant fight he actually did make one attack roll I believe, severing at least one of the con-draining tendrils which was stuck into the barbarian. (Not that the barbarian fared much better, he spent most of his time hacking his way lose, then retreated when his con hit 6.)

Also, you come off a bit arrogant, saying how you singlehandedly saved the day in both combats. They sound like minor combats, if all it took was a 2nd level summon ally spell to finish, even augmented. But its hard to tell by your description.

It isn't meant as arrogance, but a factual retelling. Though I admit the hippogriff was rolling startlingly well in the first fight. The second fight used all 3 of my 2nd level spells on SNA 2, allowing the barbarian to retreat. I think this session did illustrate to me though why the folks on the Wizards min/max forum have such a woody for druids.

The shield sounds pretty important. Anyway, this is the only example you've given which I see as something that truly was a bad move. But who knows? He might have had a plan, and is too embarassed to say what it was. Or maybe he was trying to run. When a TPK is imminent, people start doing strange things.

Well he was without his armor, hence his fetish for the shield. He has a tendency in nearly every game I've played with him to value self-preservation. My main gripe is that he doesn't seem able to see other ways to survive besides worrying about his own hide first. It isn't a major issue, but its enough that he can be unreliable in combat. The only game where he can be counted on is one where he is playing a pixie. He worries less about surviving because 95% of enemies can't see him!

Annoying for you, not necessarily for anyone else. You sound a bit like a control freak, you don't need to control the game, you are only one player. Maybe its you who needs to let go?

I can live with that. I partially evolved into that position because earlier we often had parties which lacked any sort of forethought or organization, and resulted in confusion, chaos, and a lot of deaths.

Now this is a serious statement. Can you give a real example? The short combats that your character finished before the fighter could contribute don't seem to count. And the TPK, well, all sorts of things could have gone wrong there. I'm not saying the TPK wasn't the player's fault, I'm just asking if you have another example.

Well it has occured in other games as well. Another player has basically come to the conclusion that the player in question has 3 major goals which go roughly in this order:

1) Profit
2) Survival
3) Kill

Generally these aren't an issue. However he pretty much only uses the most direct route to any of them. Picking up every piece of mundane equipment off a corpse in a game where every party member has ober 40k in gear, for an example of 1. As for 2, it generally means spending rounds worrying about personal survival when a decisive action might carry the day. 3 becomes an issue because he can't ever stop himself.

Example from another game:

The party has a frenzied berserker. There is 1 foe left, who cannot reach any friendlies except the berserker. The player of the berserker makes a comment along the lines of "oh good, I can just finish him off now". The original player (pixie rogue) decides on his next turn to sneak attack that last foe, killing him. The berserker's turn immediately follows, and he gets to whack my wizard down to -9 in one hit. (Though I will give the pixie player credit for hustling over to me with a CLW wand to stablize me)

These are minor issues taken individually, but there has a been a pattern where any time combat ensues, we can never be 100% certain what this player will do, or how he'll affect any plan we come up with.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to be attacking you, I'm just trying to see things from another viewpoint.

No, your opinions are all welcome! I know there is a lot of background info about this player and the games I've been in with him which I've not been able to include, which help shape my opinions. It is also likely that I did go a bit overboard in my original post, but hey, it was a rant after all. I mean who really is 100% sane and logical in a rant?

It's just a string of minor things which all added up and I finally wanted to let loose, and this was my only avenue to vent.

 

[Lars Porsenna]

Let me add details: He is riding a pack animal, essentially bareback (no saddle). The DM ruled that because it was not equipped properly for combat, to attach the shield in such a way that it wouldn't be lost during travel would require a full round action to ready it (so effectively a move action to remove it from the camel, and a move action to ready it). This player has a tendency to care about survival first, and since he is without his armor in the desert, he always went for his shield first.

Jeez, all my characters with shields have a guige strap, so they can wear it on their back when not in combat. Its a partial action to flip it around to the combat arm. My history degree at work...

Damon.

 

[Verequus]

The post about someone, who kills regularly his characters, inspired me - I know now a nice method how to integrate new characters of this kind of players easily. And because I don't want have it lost to posterity, I post it here:

The party is given a magical stone, which teleports seemingly randomly a new group member. But because those teleported characters die easily, the stone seems to be abit malfunctional, what would explain, why the stone has been given to the party - the former owner wants more reliable people.

 

[wolfen]

You can't train intelligence.

When intelligence is lacking, compliance is a workable substitute. Without intelligence or compliance, the individual is worthless to any group. This is a universal principle.