Nobodies fault

[unre9istered]

In the game last night I was having my new character come in to replace the old one (who retired for RP reasons). The DM had my character waylaid on the road by bandits as the rest of the party approached.

After assessing the situation my character attacked the bandits, at this point not having noticed the rest of the party. After killing a couple one of them ran away and blew a whistle.

At this point the party sees what's going on. The cleric sees people fighting and two of them lying in the road so he rides up to see if they are already dead. As he does so he passes through my threat range. Because the runner had blown a whistle I said that my character would assume they were the reinforcements after failing a spot check to notice that they had much better gear than the bandits (I was raging as well). Having seen me attack their party member the Warmage then begins to attack me as well.

The DM had to intercede by having a passing druid use a Calm Emotions effect and Fog Cloud to stop us from fighting. After the fight the cleric I hit claimed my character's weapon which he had dropped due to a botch and said I'd only get it back if I offered to serve. We found that we were all heading in the same direction and the other party members told me the cleric was a blow hard and to ignore him. After deciding to travel with them they decided to loot the bodies and wouldn't give me a share (even of the ones I killed before they got there) and generally disrespected the character.

The character is a proud barbarian who highly values his freedom. I decided that he wouldn't want to travel with them and would sneak off the first time no one was looking just in case the cleric would re-demand my weapon back and the party backed him up.

We all agreed afterward that everything that happened was due to reasonable reactions given the information we had and the personalities involved but I still sat out the rest of the night making another new character. Anyone else have a similar unfortunate event force a character out of a group?

[SpikeFightwicky]

Yeah, back in second ed. AD&D (I can never keep track of editions... the PHB had the buy on the horse riding towards you on the cover). I had a paladin, and wasn't playing lawful stupid or anything. I think we were all around levels 5-6. Then the DM's girlfriend decides she wants to try it out. Knowing full well what the party was composed of, she made a necromancer who kept animated skeletons around (the DM didn't let anyone know ahead of time what she was making).

When she showed up and was introduced, I stated that I would tolerate her presence if she relinquishes control of her undead minions and lets me destroy them (she wasn't evil -> though she acted evil but said it's what C/N would do, but the skeletons were and she acted in a way that was putting my paladin code in the red). She refused (of course), and in the end the DM didn't interfere or anything (or explain to his GF that I literally wasn't able to stick around with someone who offends who offends my moral code), so in the interest of not being a #$%!, my character left (rather than apprehend the necro) and I had to roll up a new one.

But wait, there's more! 2 of the other players thought I was getting the shaft (forced to quit to accomodate the DM's GF), so their PCs left with me (one was a cleric of my religion, the other was a friend, loyal to the cleric). Since we were all being re-introduced, we interwove our backgrounds and made PCs that were very good individually, but were extremely effective when all three of us worked together (much to the DM's frustration). Sadly, that wouldn't be the last time that particular GF would cause gaming woes for our group.

[Toliudar]

Introducing a new PC during a fight or crisis moment always SEEMS like a fun thing to do, but often leads to exactly the scenario you describe. Even in a non-crisis, it can be difficult. PC's are by nature jumpy (because things often really are out to get them. ), after all. I had a group in which a new PC wanted to show off his proud elven heritage and acrobatic skills by swinging on a rope down from a tree house, and challenge the non-elf party's right to enter the ruins of the abandoned elven city where we were meeting him. We took the archer swinging down towards us, yelling, as a threat, and he was dead before he reached the ground. All told, the PC was around for twelve seconds of game time.

[arguskos]

Introducing a new PC during a fight or crisis moment always SEEMS like a fun thing to do, but often leads to exactly the scenario you describe. Even in a non-crisis, it can be difficult. PC's are by nature jumpy (because things often really are out to get them. ), after all. I had a group in which a new PC wanted to show off his proud elven heritage and acrobatic skills by swinging on a rope down from a tree house, and challenge the non-elf party's right to enter the ruins of the abandoned elven city where we were meeting him. We took the archer swinging down towards us, yelling, as a threat, and he was dead before he reached the ground. All told, the PC was around for twelve seconds of game time.

Heh, I've had a player who tried this once. He was playing a Rogue/Assassin, and wanted to show off his skills as way of introduction. The party was currently dueling a Paladin and his coterie, so Mr. Assassin decided to try stabbing the Paladin in the back. It worked, but the PC fighting the Paladin took offense to the interruption of their dual, and so joined with the Paladin to kill this evil Assassin.

Yeah, that didn't end well.

[AtwasAwamps]

Man...I'm not reading any of these as "Nobody's Fault"

I'm seeing "Bad DM choices" and "Willful player actions" but not a lot of "nobody's fault".

[FoE]

If you're going to introduce a new character this way, it needs to be painfully obvious who the party needs to help. Generic bandits are not obvious enough. The monsters attacking the 'joining character' need to be blood-drenched zombies, demons chanting "KILL! KILL!", skeletons with swords dripping acid, etc.

[arguskos]

Man...I'm not reading any of these as "Nobody's Fault"

I'm seeing "Bad DM choices" and "Willful player actions" but not a lot of "nobody's fault".

Let's call it... "nobody ELSE's fault". Willful player death is always hilarious.

[hewhosaysfish]

"I was making a dramatic entrance!"
"You were acting like a random encounter!"

[Swordgleam]

That's what meta-gaming is for. We have a similar situation in my current game. Due to scheduling changes, a couple players had to leave, and to fill in the missing character roles, some other PCs changed classes (in plot-appropriate ways). And a new guy joined, since the party was down to three.

This seems like it makes sense. However, this party is, to steal a line from one of my players, "You know how, in every party, there's that one character who's totally sketchy, you don't know much about him, he has his own agenda, you wouldn't want him guarding your back, and you think he's hiding something? That's our entire group. And we have a 'that guy' of our own."

Enter the human bard, well-liked by the people of the village. He joins a generally disliked sorcerer who might have murdered his twin brother and is for some reason growing horns and a tail, along with a socially inept tracker girl who has a wolf companion that seems to be in control of her actions and who sometimes turns into an owl, and a complete stranger who shapeshifts constantly and has a magic sword he refuses to explain the origin of - if this character is even a he; no one is quite sure. All three characters talk to people who aren't there and worship strange gods. These people's last two companions - including a much-beloved cleric - vanished and no one knows what happened to them. It has taken every ounce of roleplaying skill the bard's player has to explain why his character doesn't go, "You people are all insane and will probably kill me in my sleep; I'm going back to the village where it's safe."

[nightwyrm]

A certain amount of meta-gaming is always necessary when a dwarf cleric, an elf barbarian, a halfling wizard and a minotaur rogue meets in a bar and decides to go dragon-molesting. The only rule I have for party making is "no PvP". If your character concept requires you to kill another PC, you alter it so that you're no longer required to kill another PC. Intra-party conflicts are hashed out before the game starts.

[Ormur]

Even though it's a bit of an imposition I think it works out better to have new PC's introduced or sent by some authority. It's a bit like a DMPC introduction but at least it lacks the DM- prefix. The previous players have usually metagamingly already accepted a new character in their group. It's always a little awkward anyway.

As a DM I had the local aristocrats who's bidding the players were doing assign them some help in their quest. In the longest running campaign I've been in one new PC was sent by some Druid that had helped us previously and another helped us defeat the zombie plague in the city we were based in. The latter was an example of meeting in a crisis but it was pretty obvious that the zombies were a common enemy.

[Lin Bayaseda]

A Player Character is not a robot, nor is he a character in a Greek tragedy; his personality can't be summarized in a few words on a sheet of paper (even if those words are "Paladin, Lawful Good"), and unlike Oedipus and his ilk, he's free to make his own destiny. Very rarely, the character will only have one way he can possibly act.

In all cases above, I don't see the course of action that was taken as the only one the PCs (and the DM) could have followed. It's more of a "everyone's fault" than "nobody's fault".

[Nich_Critic]

I almost had this in a recent campaign. We met in a crisis (seems to be a death sentence of sorts. Strange, because it would seem to work well). I was a wizard, specializing in summoning, and my fluff was that I a street performer that summoned animals who, with my familiar, performed tricks. As soon as the fight was over (and already having proved my value as a combatant), one of my players gets in my character's face about how I was treating my familiar (something about slavery was tossed around).

I still don't know what he was thinking, but it made it rough for me to come up with any reason why my character would want to hang out with this group that was baselessly accusing her of being immoral after she had helped them. We smoothed it over, and the character joined the group properly, but it was a rocky start.

Introductions like that usually take some metagaming, because otherwise the character might legitimately not fit properly in the group. Usually if you build your character with strong convictions, that's what causes conflicts. Which is a shame, because the more interesting characters tend to believe strongly in something.

Even though it's a bit of an imposition I think it works out better to have new PC's introduced or sent by some authority. It's a bit like a DMPC introduction but at least it lacks the DM- prefix. The previous players have usually metagamingly already accepted a new character in their group. It's always a little awkward anyway.

As a DM I had the local aristocrats who's bidding the players were doing assign them some help in their quest. In the longest running campaign I've been in one new PC was sent by some Druid that had helped us previously and another helped us defeat the zombie plague in the city we were based in. The latter was an example of meeting in a crisis but it was pretty obvious that the zombies were a common enemy.

This seems like a good way to circumvent it. Think of the wacky sitcoms which have characters who are opposite personalities. They're always held together, at least initially, with a form of "author intervention", because if they weren't, there would be no plausible reason for them to be in their situation. The necromancer and the cleric might have had to try to get along because the cleric's god said that it was imperative that the necromancer be present for the final battle. Now, whether or not you want your campaign to be like a sitcom is another matter...

[Dust]

The DM had to intercede by having a passing druid use a Calm Emotions effect and Fog Cloud to stop us from fighting.

It strikes me as humorous that, in my eyes, this is where the blame lies.

[Iku Rex]

How it's done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIaIdv79Xz4 (first 30 seconds)

[Ormur]

How it's done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIaIdv79Xz4 (first 30 seconds)

Exactly.

In retrospect we entrusted a morally sketchy barbarian we met in the streets with safeguarding the stones that held together existence and were coveted by an ominicadal epic dragon. No problem, move along.

[unre9istered]

It strikes me as humorous that, in my eyes, this is where the blame lies.

If he hadn't done this then they'd have just killed him. He was level 6 barbarian which meant he had 12 hp that would have gone away as soon as they dropped him. They had no reason to use subdual damage so it was DM intervention or the character dies with no chance to RP a way into the group. To me it felt like the cleric sticking his nose into a fight with an obviously raging barbarian wielding a reach weapon was where it went wrong, though he had reason to do that as well.

[Tiki Snakes]

Personally, I think the bit where he decides that he would attack the cleric, 'because it makes sense' is the bit where it went wrong.

The moment you voluntarily took the opportunity attack, the rest was predictably inevitable.

[Dust]

It's just one of those silly acquiescences in RP games I've never understood. I mean, I can understand why you certainly would not want to lose the amount of work you've put into your character and start anew; that only breeds bitterness.
But on the other hand, after you declared your barbarian attacks the party (for whatever reasons, even good RP ones!) it's still going to start a snowball of problems. Having a random npc jump in and start casting spells on people mid-combat doesn't say 'Conflicts have been averted!' to me. It says 'NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS.'

I just think the end of your story was inevitable; if conflicts come up between players, they have to resolve between players. Having npcs help....simply doesn't.

[electricbee]

I think what gets lost a lot of the time is that people are playing a game together.

You do have a level of obligation to the people you play with to play WITH them.

IMO it is not metagaming, and rather is good storytelling, to choose character actions in a way that forwards the story. Its also pretty obnoxious to use character choices as a way to disrupt having a good time, not only for your self, but for people who are at least theoretically your friends.

[jiriku]

Yeah, attacking a new player's PC, or attacking your soon-to-be party, if you are the PC, is just plain doofy.

I mean, what are you hoping for? Either the new PC is overwhelmed and dies, resulting in an unhappy player, or the new PC waxes a couple of the established players, resulting in multiple unhappy players...or possibly you get both of those.

I have much respect for DMs who manage their groups and don't permit shenanigans like this.

[Yukitsu]

I think so long as the group acts in that manner by convention, everything is relatively fine. I know my group tends to be brutally honest if you're careless about how you introduce yourself, and are percieved as useless by the party in character, and when I do so by accident, I generally work harder to fix that. We generally let PvP in introductions go to their conclusion when it crops up, and then discuss what went wrong so we can avoid it later, but it's not as though that sort of thing is particularly disruptive or bothersome in the long run.

[Nightson]

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll...4H9k6efFP.html

Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No."

You attacking the cleric, the cleric grabbing your weapon and holding it hostage, and the other players not giving you a share of the treasure and bad mouthing your character in game.

Each of these points could have gone the other way. No, this is hardly the end of the world, the overall impact was pretty slight, but it could easily have been prevented.

[PersonMan]

Yeah, attacking a new player's PC, or attacking your soon-to-be party, if you are the PC, is just plain doofy.

I mean, what are you hoping for? Either the new PC is overwhelmed and dies, resulting in an unhappy player, or the new PC waxes a couple of the established players, resulting in multiple unhappy players...or possibly you get both of those.

I have much respect for DMs who manage their groups and don't permit shenanigans like this.

I planned something like this for a planned new character for my group.She was a paladin with a kobold cohort, and I was going to have the kobold running around, presumably be attacked by trigger-happy PCs, and her rush in with Smite Evil, seeing the half-celestial in the party, and figuring out the misunderstanding.

I think it would have gone quite well if I had kept that character long enough to use them.