|
Having DMed this scenario, I can tell you that I saw a similar thing happen. However, it was not the result of a cleric calling out to let them aboard. They had an individual with them that insisted on remaining in flight as much as possible. Specifically, they remained in flight at the perfect height to fly RIGHT into line of sight for literally every living thing on the boat. Now I know the scenario says they should not be alerted, but certain things can happen that makes it outright impossible for the party to go unnoticed.
The party did successfully overcome the challenge presented, but it cost their bard his life. Fortunately, both the bard and the other character that had been slain earlier in the adventure were able to be brought back at the end of it.
|
Ouch! What's with everyone dying in this one? It wasn't that tough when my group played it. Our biggest issue was the grippli up the flag pole throwing bombs at us. And our gnome alchemist throwing bombs back, which then proceeded to land on other PCs when he missed. The GM did warn him that would happen, but he's a gnome, dammit! ;)
|
No...there is bad ideas...and getting other characters killed because you do something without letting them know your gonna do the bad idea and ruining their fun. And that is a best case scenario here (seriously, diplomacy while on row boats when you had surprise to get aboard the ship?!?). At worst, this is a PvP action in which the cleric player basically aggroed the encounter in hopes that somebody gets killed by it. Best case...the cleric was a jerk...so he failed the don't be a jerk rule (if the other players all say no and you do it anyways, your being a jerk...if you do not even give them a say so...once again, being jerk). Worst case, this is PvP and the player need a talk to that further such actions will absolutely NOT BE TOLERATED. Such actions have zero place in PFS. This of course assume the issues that the OP brought up is actually factual mind you. There has been some doubt brought on about this. Then again, the cleric player didn't argue the key point of attempting the diplomacy from the rowboats either. Now of course there is the issue of if the GM also fubared the encounter on TOP of this issue. Seriously, I think your local VO should really get involved at this point. They are there to help...use them.I gotta disagree. What it actually sounds like is that the Cleric resorted to a good tactic, (in and of itself that really needs to be encouraged in PFS not discouraged), but also one they had demonstrated in the game with success at least twice in that game. Meaning there is no chance that the other players didn't see this coming, and like I pointed out, the Stealth attempt actually would have turned out bad all around, even if they didn't know it. So what actually seems to have happened is he rolled poorly, not that he did something wrong, (as in at all wrong), and it also seems that the DM in fact did run this correctly, and it was the player that either had or presented false information, and probably needs the talking to about. It also seems...
You are assuming that the cleric's account is accurate. We have two VERY differing accounts of the event here after all. So somebody isn't being truthful...be it intentional or not. The ONLY point where both accounts match up is that the cleric yelled out from their row boats. I think we can assume that bit happened then. EVERYTHING else from the two vastly different accounts makes it quite suspect. The whole they threw axes at the ship's hull for instance is a huge freaking red flag for me. I have a hard time believing that other players response to the cleric initiating diplomacy was to attack a ship's hull (not the pirates on the ship, but the actual ship haul...really?!?). Even still, the cleric player's differing account does now throw the OP's claims into suspect as well. When you have vastly differing accounts like this, I see trouble and really, like I said, I really think tapping the local VO resource might be a good thing for this local group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hard time believing that other players response to the cleric initiating diplomacy was to attack a ship's hull (not the pirates on the ship, but the actual ship haul...really?!?
Put hole in ship. Sink ship. collect fleeing pirates in boat. Profit. Sounds like the PC inanity i love when DMing.
|
I was assuming either that or sort of attempting to climb with them or make hand holds to climb.
@ CM I did point that out, and I didnt mean that to come off as admonishing you, was just trying to point out that what you had assumed from the start as a foundation against said DM might not be right at all.
|
Can we get off judging the scenario that inspired the question and discuss the question posed: "When does roleplaying fall into screwing over other character?"
Establish some guidelines and alternatives, like ...
Allow the other players to call "timeout" when someone says they are going to do something that another player thinks will turn out badly.
The immortal phrase "If I get killed, I'm never speaking to you again." also comes in handy some times.
So ...
WHEN does RPing turn into non-cooperative or anti-social behavior on the part of the player?
|
|
WHEN does RPing turn into non-cooperative or anti-social behavior on the part of the player?
1) When "role playing" is a deliberate excuse for being a male donkey.
2) when the role playing takes over the entire game from all of the other players.
3) When you run a good chance of getting the entire party killed and you should know better. Getting your character killed for their beliefs is one thing,the entire party may not feel the same way.
|
|
"Honour?!?! I've got seven kingdoms to rule! One king, seven kingdoms! Do you think honour keeps them in line?!?" -Robert Baratheon.
The cleric didn't get you beaten because he roleplayed an honourable character.
The cleric got you beaten because he roleplayed an honourable character BEFORE you'd all gotten onto the boat.
There's a big difference between honour and stupidity, and the cleric crossed that line.
Is the cleric's surname Stark?
No, no, the Cleric wasn't the armor specialist.
Oh, wait, wrong Stark...Carry on.
|
|
WHEN does RPing turn into non-cooperative or anti-social behavior on the part of the player?1) When "role playing" is a deliberate excuse for being a male donkey.
2) when the role playing takes over the entire game from all of the other players.
3) When you run a good chance of getting the entire party killed and you should know better. Getting your character killed for their beliefs is one thing,the entire party may not feel the same way.
Then there should be a standard way for the other players (or the GM) to call a halt at that point.
"Time out"
"Flag"
"Foul!"
"Your honor, I object!"
Any time a player calls something like this, all action stops until the GM makes a ruling on whether or not the offending player is being a jerk. Seems to work well for a lot of other combat games, like hockey.
|
|
So now that we have addressed the "question". Let's talk about how this scenario could have accomodated everybody's roleplaying style and still succeeded.
Two boats. The sneaks and the beef go in one boat and row out to sea and come back towards the ship from the seaward side. The negotiators and casters, like the cleric, go in another boat and leaving later, approach the landward side of the ship at about the same time the others are coming in from seaward.
The negotiators make a big to-do on the landward side to get the attention of everyone on board. While the pirates are distracted, the other boatload of characters, as sneakily as possible, climb the opposite side. If necessary, the best climber and/or the sneakiest character climb aboard first and lower a knotted rope for the others.
Still lots of ways for this to go wrong, and this kind of sounds like what they were trying to do, but they just didn't do it very well. Maybe their plan wasn't detailed enough.
I'll go try to negotiate with them while you guys climb up the other side." leaves a lot to chance.
|
|
I find that I can kill any character without crossing the line, which is something you may wish to let the cleric know.
I once told a rogue who was doing things to hurt the party that he would die if he continued to do things that hurt the rest of us. OOC the player said that I couldn't kill him, per PFS rules, and I told him that I could choose not to heal him the next time he dropped to -5 hp. That seemed to straighten both the PC and the Player out real quick. All of a sudden it became very apparent that I could kill him and still keep my PC.
In your case, the rogue will walk ahead and the cleric is right behind him. You let him step on a trap and then do nothing to heal him, when he dies. You didn't kill him, you simply didn't help him. This will straighten the Player out real quick. Or a fight begins and the Cleric does more dmg than anyone else, then everyone else backs up until the monster kills him and no one steps in to help him.
There's a fine line but if you know what you're doing, you can walk it without crossing it.
|
|
Until the GM reminds you the Society motto is "Explore. Report. Cooperate."
Cooperation is good. However, if cooperating with one person means you're not cooperating with the rest of the party because said person is about to get them all killed, then how do you figure it out? I figure there are times when letting a character die for the greater good of the rest of the group would still be considered cooperation, but that's just my two cents.
|
|
Until the GM reminds you the Society motto is "Explore. Report. Cooperate."Cooperation is good. However, if cooperating with one person means you're not cooperating with the rest of the party because said person is about to get them all killed, then how do you figure it out? I figure there are times when letting a character die for the greater good of the rest of the group would still be considered cooperation, but that's just my two cents.
That's when you point out to the first person that he's breaking the cooperate rule.
|
If one player continues to not cooperate, you can:
Roleplay it, and demand In Character that he at least consult with everyone else before just doing whatever they want.
- if that doesn't work -
Ask the GM to intercede. If this just causes argument and strife at the table then this idea probably is a bad one.
- If that doesn’t work -
Let the guy do what he wants, but he goes alone. And if he dies because of it, that’s his fault for not cooperating.
So the answer to your question is, yes. If someone is being a complete jerk at the table and unwilling to cooperate, they aren’t really roleplaying as a Pathfinder Society Agent (at least not a good or effective one) and deserve to have their character die because of their actions.
Do not ever let someone bully an entire table into what they want to do, just because you are worried about being nice. Bullying, in any form, is not ok.
As a GM, I won’t give the bullying lone wolf guy any spotlight either. I’ll quickly adjudicate what happens with him (possibly even just narrating it if it is obvious what will happen) and then move on with the scenario with the people who want to play as a team.
All that being said, I’m not saying the Cleric in the OP was wrong either. But remember, despite diplomacy being a good tool to solve issues in scenarios, some people play this game to whack monsters. And if you dominate the game with your social graces, and they don’t get to whack monsters, then they won’t have much fun either. So consider that the next time you try to “win” a scenario with your charm and wit solely.
|
|
And if you dominate the game with your social graces, and they don’t get to whack monsters, then they won’t have much fun either. So consider that the next time you try to “win” a scenario with your charm and wit solely.
Exactly how I play, I once killed two encounters with diplomacy and then apologized and said I wouldn't talk to any NPC bad guys for the next 8 scenarios because I felt bad for everyone else at the table because they only had one fight, all game long.
My group luckily said, that it was ok to talk our way through every scenario that was able to be talked out off. Apparently dying/fighting wasn't nearly as important to them. But I know groups who wouldn't appreciate a diplomacy check in every scenario, so I always ask if they want me to try, just so that I won't be jerk.
-
-
-
As for the OP, it seems like the Cleric in that group seems to make extreme choices for the entire party. You want to talk, have at it, AFTER we get on the ship, not while we're in a vulnerable position. Sometimes it a timing issue and a bad player can cause a TPK with his bad play.
|
|
I find that I can kill any character without crossing the line, which is something you may wish to let the cleric know.
I once told a rogue who was doing things to hurt the party that he would die if he continued to do things that hurt the rest of us. OOC the player said that I couldn't kill him, per PFS rules, and I told him that I could choose not to heal him the next time he dropped to -5 hp. That seemed to straighten both the PC and the Player out real quick. All of a sudden it became very apparent that I could kill him and still keep my PC.
In your case, the rogue will walk ahead and the cleric is right behind him. You let him step on a trap and then do nothing to heal him, when he dies. You didn't kill him, you simply didn't help him. This will straighten the Player out real quick. Or a fight begins and the Cleric does more dmg than anyone else, then everyone else backs up until the monster kills him and no one steps in to help him.
There's a fine line but if you know what you're doing, you can walk it without crossing it.
Don't be a jerk rule applies to YOU as well you know. You may not be doing PvP, but you are definitely being a jerk if you threaten to let them die when they drop to negs. Seriously, what happened to talking things like mature adults? I'm a jackass and I can manage to do that. I worry that I'm being the voice of reason here.
|
|
I think you missed the point that talking like mature adults has already failed. Granted, the DM should have stepped in by that point, and notified the problem player that this is last warning, next time their getting a scenario failed chronicle sheet and moving along, but it's probably already ruined everyone else's night anyway at this point, damage is already done.
The problem character has already demonstrated that they don't care about anyone else, player or character, and are more than willing to try to hide behind the rules to metagame whatever they want, out of character.
|
|
When I was roleplaying this exact battle I used some less than stealthy tactics, although no one else claimed to be attempting stealth. Regardless, the GM targeted me for several hits because I was standing out like a sore thumb. I felt it was pretty appropriate and had fun despite the fact I had a fairly squishy character. I think this means of aggo is a decent way to promote team tactics without killing roleplay.
|
|
I think you missed the point that talking like mature adults has already failed. Granted, the DM should have stepped in by that point, and notified the problem player that this is last warning, next time their getting a scenario failed chronicle sheet and moving along, but it's probably already ruined everyone else's night anyway at this point, damage is already done.
The problem character has already demonstrated that they don't care about anyone else, player or character, and are more than willing to try to hide behind the rules to metagame whatever they want, out of character.
Is this a hypothetical or are we talking about this case? Because this case has a LOT unclear an we as forumites, very far away from the OP are not very likely to get good details on. Which is why I said that since two player and possible a GM (or more) are in conflict, it maybe time for them to use the VOs.
Now hypothetically, if such a player did exists and you personally could not talk with them, have your GM do it. If they fail, talk with your coordinator. If that fails, contact your VO. If that fails, contact Mike Brock. Seriously, there is at no point where you need to be a jerk. If this one player is such a huge problem that none of the previous people could deal with it, I am sure Mike would really want to know who that is and will deal with him/her. If not, it maybe a case of it's not them, it's you.
|
|
I'm going to go with, no. Its really simple, I'll talk to the other players first to find out if I'm the only one who has an issue. Once I'm made aware that its annoying everyone else, too. I make a polite suggestion. If the suggestion isn't taken or I'm dismissed, I'll make the threat of non-cooperation. After all, why would I cooperate with someone who isn't cooperating with me.
And healing someone, who might get the others in your group killed is foolish. This scenario would definitively fall under the don't cooperate with non-cooperative PCs category.
Mike Brock does not need to be involved in every dispute between players, sometimes things need to be handled on a local level.
|
|
Is this a hypothetical or are we talking about this case? Because this case has a LOT unclear an we as forumites, very far away from the OP are not very likely to get good details on. Which is why I said that since two player and possible a GM (or more) are in conflict, it maybe time for them to use the VOs.
Now hypothetically, if such a player did exists and you personally could not talk with them, have your GM do it. If they fail, talk with your coordinator. If that fails, contact your VO. If that fails, contact Mike Brock. Seriously, there is at no point where you need to be a jerk. If this one player is such a huge problem that none of the previous people could deal with it, I am sure Mike would really want to know who that is and will deal with him/her. If not, it maybe a case of it's not them, it's you.
Based on what Eric said, it sounds like it really happened, and was stopped after that point.
I once told a rogue who was doing things to hurt the party that he would die if he continued to do things that hurt the rest of us. OOC the player said that I couldn't kill him, per PFS rules, and I told him that I could choose not to heal him the next time he dropped to -5 hp. That seemed to straighten both the PC and the Player out real quick. All of a sudden it became very apparent that I could kill him and still keep my PC.
Granted, just going off of what he said, but I'd think that going past the DM is probably not needed, unless the problem player is just being a total douche and not even listening to the DM, which doesn't seem to be the case.