What do you think of dying at level 1?

[Technik4]

who wasnt being a friend?

Well, if a friend asked you to help some people and felt strongly about it and you were going against a church that had just come in and displaced all the faith of your peoples, I'd say a real friend would help, and an acquaintance would bicker about rewards.

why were your characters friends in the first place?

One of the group's problems is that everyone ends up playing 'loner' type characters, yet we are playing d&d and d&d is based around a party. To prevent this common occurrence from repeating itself, I asked the player if he would like to intertwine our backgrounds so we did (but this was a semi-last minute thing and we obviously didn't check to see if we had matching alignments).

With statements from your post, viewed from the scout's POV, the scout could be asking "Did the ninja and warlock do anything wrong?" You and the warlock picked a fight with a strong enemy, which your friend specifically said he was against, and in hindsight you admit wasnt planned well. You and the warlock decided to to it with or without the scout, and now that it went badly you feel your death was possibly all the scouts fault.

It wasn't planned perfectly, but we did have a fairly good plan. We used some poison to sicken 4 of the guards and we planned on keeping the head cleric locked in church unable to heal the guards which all worked as planned. Admittedly, we didn't account for the guards to try and take their large adamantine-darkwood-cutting saws with them when they were attacked in the middle of the night, but it's hard to plan for every possible outcome. The scout agreed to help us, but when the battle begun didn't like the odds and waffled.

why did the scout switch to your side towards the end of the battle? did the character feel he should switch, or did the player feel he should switch? (my almost 100% unfounded opinion is that the player thought it was more important to save his real-life friends character than to stay in character himself, again, totally a guess by me)

Well, when he first started waffling I said something to the effect of "Now he won't fight on our side until it looks like we're winning", and that's exactly what happened. Two entangle spells from the NPC druid and a lot of grick archery fire suppressed the clerics and started taking down guards a lot better than the satyrs and wolves who died in the first few rounds to little effect. The gricks had been burning the sheets inside the barracks during those rounds, we had tried planning a distraction to split the guards' forces, but we didn't account for a signal so it all came together too fast.

I don't think any of the characters were played poorly, I am just frustrated with dying at level 1 when a) It could have been prevented with a more valiant party and b) I have to make a new character to join with a CN Warlock and a NE Scout/Ranger. My frustration prompted me to make a post and see what other people thought of the situation.

 

[Treebore]

well, your situation made it suck, but dying at first level is to be expected.

 

[Felnar]

The scout agreed to help us, but when the battle begun didn't like the odds and waffled.

this is very unlike a friend. he agreed to help, so unless it was part of some elaborate backstab plot, he shouldnt have switched sides. i wouldnt have a problem with him retreating from overwhelming odds tho. but to switch sides is too much.
talk to the player about your concerns so hopefully it wont happen again to your next character

I don't think any of the characters were played poorly, I am just frustrated with dying at level 1 when a) It could have been prevented with a more valiant party and b) I have to make a new character to join with a CN Warlock and a NE Scout/Ranger. My frustration prompted me to make a post and see what other people thought of the situation.

with more specifics, it feels like the scout was played poorly. i'd be frustrated too. since you like "eastern" classes, maybe make a ronin type (for some melee staying power on the team) and try out true neutral or CE alignment (to fit with the others). Do not try for any type of revenge on the scout, its very bad for group dynamics.

Admittedly, we didn't account for the guards to try and take their large adamantine-darkwood-cutting saws with them when they were attacked in the middle of the night, but it's hard to plan for every possible outcome.

in your initial post you said they were axes, and its plausible to take axes to a fight (even tho they also had longswords). but taking large saws to a fight? that feels like DM metagaming to foil your plan. also, your group uses the time rules for donning armor, but did the guards spend 4 minutes putting on breastplates? was the full barracks of guards ready and waiting for the attack? maybe you should talk to your DM about railroading the encounter.

goodluck

 

[Greylock]

As a matter of personal policy, I never commit in writing to an extended, detailed character background until at least the third session involving a new PC. There are several reasons I do this, and I won't derail this thread by discussing all the reasons, but one of them is the fact that so many 1st Level characters fail to make it "back to the inn" so to speak, it's not really worth the time until I know they are viable.

When a first or second level character dies, I grab the sack o' D6.

 

[Gentlegamer]

As a matter of personal policy, I never commit in writing to an extended, detailed character background until at least the third session involving a new PC. There are several reasons I do this, and I won't derail this thread by discussing all the reasons, but one of them is the fact that so many 1st Level characters fail to make it "back to the inn" so to speak, it's not really worth the time until I know they are viable.

When a first or second level character dies, I grab the sack o' D6.

I agree . . . I wait until about 3rd-5th level, though.

 

[Lanefan]

1st level (in any edition) is something of a crapshoot, and I'm cool with that. I just make sure as DM I tell my players not to get too attached to their characters too quickly.

Your specific party sounds like something I-as-player could have a blast in...but then, I'm used to games like that, where "having someone's back" only means you're first in line to stab it...

Lanefan

 

[rgard]

The most fun is had by all when the players act as a team. I think you have a good idea now as to the ability of the scout player to integrate his goals with the team goals.

 

[cougent]

Not acting as a team has already been covered, but I also see 2 other areas of concern; just as they were for my group many years ago. 1) Player knowledge and character knowledge seperation, or in this case not enough cooperation. This is the first quote and response. 2) Player and character mismatch. It is a game, but not everyone can play quarterback no matter how much they may want to do just that.

Anyway, the player playing the Scout and I talked beforehand and agreed our characters would be friends, having worked together in the past conning rich merchants and putting on small shows for peasants. My character was CG, but I didn't know what he was playing.

But you should have, if your characters are friends and have worked together before, then this player knowledge is virtually a given, or is a given that you will exchange it to make sure that the characters actually can be friends and work together. Also below you comment that this player is normally passive, so you should have player knowledge whether he can play an aggressive tank role or not before just agreeing to do so. Saying and doing are often totally different things. Maybe he can't / does not know how to play a tank role.

Now, he had the best attack bonus, the most hit points, the best armor class, the highest movement rate, and the best damage (especially with skirmish damage). Yet he was not willing to stand and tank because the odds were against him. In the final battle both of the guards in my area were wounded and probably would have gone down with 1 hit because of me and the warlock repeatedly hitting them for low amounts of damage. Rather than charging them, he just made a lot of movement trying to lead the guards away.

Clearly the character fits the tank model, but does the player behind the character? That would be my question both as an outside observer and as a player. You hate to duplicate roles, but if the player will not / can not play the tank role; and if the party needs a tank, then you may have to have another one and cover him. Maybe if it is just lack of experience he can grow into the role.

Before the game we agreed he would be playing the 'tanking' role. I understand its level 1 and crazy stuff happens at low levels but I attacked with +0 more than he did with +3, with a worse AC, hp, etc. He is simply a passive player, which we attribute to his WoW playing. During the fight the dm let it slip that one of us was Neutral Evil (and the warlock had already mentioned he was Chaotic).

This is the classic Player / Character mismatch. IMHO passive people / players DO NOT play aggressive characters worth a flip. I know there are exceptions to this rule (and many will probably post that they are) but it is the rule for a reason, *most* of the time it is true. I had passive players who wanted to play aggressive characters, but they just didn't. They tried, they were less passive than normal, but the square peg just did not fit the round hole. Ultimately they abandoned the characters or we mercifully killed them off and they adopted a character that better suited their real personalities and play styles. Unless their is some subterfuge going on, your GM should address this now or else this will probably continue unabated all the way through, so does your group really need a timid tank?

Did the scout do anything wrong? Do I have any reason to be mad at his kiting tactics and general lack of aggression? The dm offered to get me raised but I didn't want to continue mostly because I couldn't see any reason for my character to adventure with such a 'friend' who would constantly disagree about quests and have almost directly opposed alignments, not to mention had shown himself to be a traitor (in my character's eyes).

If he is honestly trying to be a part of the group and play a tank role, then yes he definitely dropped the ball. However, with the alignment choice, the mixed tactics, and the end result of your death I am curious if he does not have some ulterior motive truly driving his character, if that is the case then he may have done just right.

Right, wrong? What would you do?

I would have a discussion with your GM and present your concerns to him.
Is your new character going to be able to trust and work with this guy now?
That may be the next problem to overcome.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think dying at level 1 should happen more often.

I used to encourage players to develop rich backgrounds and such but soon learned that doing so meant I would meet with fierce resistance to killing them. I like my campaign worlds to be dangerous places where the career of an adventurer is often a lethal one. Those who survive to high levels truly are talented and heroic. Those who die by the cartloads are far more common.

These days I encourage a paragraph or less of background and encourage the player to develop the character through play, making up his history and personality from a rough sketch as he goes along. By the time he has worked up a detailed background, he can usually afford a raise dead spell. It may seem counterintuitive, but I've found it actually improves roleplaying.

 

[Celebrim]

When starting out new players at 1st level, I always have them run two characters and tell them, "Don't get attached too to a character until its been around a while. At this stage, its not clear who is a minor character and who is the protagonist."

In 1st edition AD&D, a typical campaign would winnow through maybe a dozen characters before getting them up into the 6th or 7th level range when they'd actually start becoming durable. By that time, even if they didn't start with a backstory, they now had one.

In this case, what you are talking about isn't death per se. The problem is the classic failure of party cohesion.

As a DM, I would never allow a party with such mixed goals to be formed without prior knowledge of the players, and even then I'd be wary. I've seen some very promising campaigns go down the tubes (and a few less promising ones) because the DM basically said, 'Make whatever you want'. You say that as a DM and too often you end up with an unplayable mess for protagonists, often even though you have good RPers for players and sometimes especially because you have good RPers for players.