Hello everyone!
I've been DMing for some time, and I and my players have been discussing this issue and are curious about other opinions and inputs.
Imagine a situation where a hated enemy is engaged in combat with the party, and then surrenders, appearing visibly afraid for their life. The rogue steps in, stating that they want to immediately end the enemy's life with a dagger. Another player, a ranger, states that they physically restrain the rogue out of compassion for the person's life.
Should this be something that should be allowed by DMs? It is an interesting consideration because every player wants to voice their opinion through their actions, either by destroying a potential threat or by protecting a person who may have information or a hope for redemption.
As DM, if I deny the ranger the ability to halt the rogue's attack, I effectively remove their ability to act upon their motivations and thoughts, going down one path without the ability to at least discuss the other.
However, it could be said that I am doing the same for the rogue if I allow the ranger to halt his coup de grace, preventing him from demonstrating his cold, calculating nature.
Thoughts?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roll for initiative. You provide the unbiased mechanics, not the party dynamic.
The problem is, if you deny the ranger the chance to IC act and stop the rogue, then YOU are OOC denying him that option.
If the ranger stops the rogue, it's all IC.
Just be careful how that develops. If everyone takes it in good fun, no problem, but some players can take this stuff personal.
Anyway, here's how I would do it:
Depending on how it was RPed, I might allow the Rogue a stealth or bluff check, and the Ranger a Perception/Sense Motive to see if the character even realises what the other is doing.
Have them roll initiative. Ranger can then try to grapple the rogue, or take him out with non-lethal or something. If the rogue manages the CdG, well he succeeded. If not, then not.
Remember CdG is a full-round action that provokes AoO, so he can't move to the prisoner and kill him in the same turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players initiating combat among themselves is no different than with an enemy. They roll initiative and see who acts first and follow all appropriate rules.
If the Rogue goes first he can attempt a coup de grace as a full round action that provokes if the captive is helpless. If the captive is not helpless you better believe he is going to try to defend himself as appropriate for his situation.
If the ranger is close he can try to restrain the rogue with grapple or whatever ability he wants to use if at range then use whatever he can or move to the rogue and whatever.
If the ranger wins initiative then he gets to try to restrain the rogue first and so forth.
If the rogue said he was trying to hide his actions from the party BEFORE stating what he was doing I would allow a stealth check as suggested above. If not then he was in full view of all and clearly indicating his actions and the group can react appropriately.
People disagree in RL and characters do too in games. I see no reason it should not be allowed and handled appropriately from what you have described. All the rules to handle what you described are in the game.
And if the rogue is good aligned and slaughters a helpless captive then their alignment should take the appropriate result.
As far as your rogue 'freedom to act' versus ranger idea, the rogue stated he was doing something. Every action can have consequences. That the consequence this time comes from another player makes it no less valid. If the rogue does not want to deal with the consequences of his actions he should be more careful of what he does.
But there is nothing in the rogues actions that makes his murder of the captive automatic or free if there is anyone that would act counter to that end enemy OR friendly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, roll for initiative any time a player tries to move before another player.
I would inform the ranger that if the enemy is tied up and he loses initiative the rogue will be able to kill him. Personally I think the party should come to a consensus about how to handle prisoners.
Wow. I thought I'd be a quick answer on this one but your is a more complicated version than mine. Had a wolfen quattoria reading a bound disarmed and kneeling royal kreeghor his miranda (which this lawful neutral judge dredd type quattoria's version is pretty much you have the right to be executed by me right now you dirty lizard for the crimes which I will iterate now. blah blah.) at which point another party member simply decided to start shooting.
Technically the quattoria was monologuing so he was officially out of the combat initiative cycle. The other party member then 'took initiative' (a surprise action) and shot, interrupting the glorious monologue of our Judge Dredd quattoria. Dice were thrown. Tensions were high. How dare one players RP step on the RP of another.
Even if the shooter is 'playing in character' that the wisest decision is not to give the captive a monologues worth of time to escape... its still stepping on the toes of the one who prefers a grand monologue before pullling the trigger.
I simply said that although it hadn't gone as the monologuer planned, it was not a violation of either one of them being able to play in character. Once again the disadvantage to playing a game with 'other human beings' is that the story isnt about what you alone would do. Interaction is what the game is about. Even when that means disagreeing. What happens next is you decide what the proper RP would be for your character now that he's been interrupted.
Initiative isnt a bad idea in your situation but in my situation the surprise action trumps initiative.
The scene was in fact genuine to the motivations of each character on his own, and at the same time hillariously cinematic.
---You have the right to remain silent, if *BLAM BLAM BLAM* "WHOA whoa whoa!!!!"---
Theres still some hard feelings about it at the table but I think its important that each of my players remembers that in this case, expecting a [party member who would never allow monologuing] to [let you monologue] might be stepping on his RP toes in the first place... The fact that you play a character who monologues knowing this guy doesnt wait around for it is baiting the issue in the first place and trying to step on his toes, while presenting it as him stepping on your toes instead. Its the player who likes playing paladins as a way to hold authority over the rest of the party.
Ventures into 'i'm not a prick. I'm playing a *character* who's a prick"...
These players insist on playing the kinds of characters that have different views on what to do in a situation, but then freak out when those proclivities come to a head?
True, maybe its time for these guys to go back to teamwork school. Or. Alternatively maybe its time to realize you're in a party with more than one person. The sad reality is everyone is given their own agency, but should be ready to accept the consequences of that agency...
When the quattoria threatened the gunner that if he shot the quarry then the quattoria was going to shoot the gunner for interrupting his miranda (executioners) speech, the gunner was ready to accept that as a possibility. Then they could both 'stay in character'.
Human interaction isnt always pretty. Thats what makes the game interesting. The good news is we get to see both players be very passionate about their game. Even if it creates a little drama at the table, I think its valuable drama as long as it doesnt fester into 3 decades of PVP. Of course as a GM that would totally make my job easier.
My 2 cents: If someone role plays a prick, role play a party loot deduction.
Technically the quattoria was monologuing so he was officially out of the combat initiative cycle. The other party member then 'took initiative' (a surprise action) and shot, interrupting the glorious monologue of our Judge Dredd quattoria. Dice were thrown. Tensions were high. How dare one players RP step on the RP of another.
Where does this concept come from? How does a player get the idea that just because he is doing anything that the rest of the game world cannot still impinge upon him?
I have never met a player or been in a game where I have experienced this concept and it boggles my mind that it even exists. Is the fact that he has decided to actually say something somehow make the world paralyzed until they are done?
How dare a player 'step on his RP'? I will will tell you how: They are both in the same game. If player one wants no one to 'step on his RP' (and the very concept seems absurd to a degree that makes me laugh) then he should not be in a game with other players. This is not a mono storied activity. RPG are a SHARED story activity. Nothing makes one players actions more or less valid than any others.
I really, really hate to say this (and am most definitively not insulting any person here) but the entire attitude smacks of 'spoiled little brat'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some of the games I was in, the arguments between PCs were one of the best things. It's hard to play a character who's passionate about some ideal if everyone just nods and agrees with you. You need opponents to argue against to define yourself.
Example: in a Vampire Dark Ages game one of the players played a catholic priest. At some point a new player made a really devout jewish PC. Who owned our means of travel. And refused to travel on the Sabbath (Saturday). The ensuing arguments caused the catholic priest's player to really step up the theme of faith. Before it was something that had receded a bit to the background, but now it became much more of an issue. Those players used their PCs' differences to really express their characters.
Imagine a situation where a hated enemy is engaged in combat with the party, and then surrenders, appearing visibly afraid for their life. The rogue steps in, stating that they want to immediately end the enemy's life with a dagger. Another player, a ranger, states that they physically restrain the rogue out of compassion for the person's life.Should this be something that should be allowed by DMs? It is an interesting consideration because every player wants to voice their opinion through their actions, either by destroying a potential threat or by protecting a person who may have information or a hope for redemption.
You have two choices;
Dont set this up in the first place.
Or
Stop and allow them to talk it out IC, and then restart action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had a wolfen quattoria reading a bound disarmed and kneeling royal kreeghor his miranda...
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.?
Had a wolfen quattoria reading a bound disarmed and kneeling royal kreeghor his miranda...Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.?
And through and through: The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
Its a palladium rifts campaign. Wolfen are essentially humanoid wolves (furry!) and quattoria are essentially cybernetic versions of them who all gravitate towards the job of policing the galaxy. The guy who likes playing them likes them for the same reason he likes dwarves: they're both races that think of all other races as inferior. He's a bit of a chronic xenophobe.
This isn't the kind of thing that needs an OOC intervention. Roll initiative because the PCs are opening combat with one another, even without an intent to harm their party member (presumably). Rouge wins, CdG. Ranger wins, attempts grapple, whatever.
This is all perfectly legal action, unless you demand your party be the best of friends with each other. Just know that the Ranger's morals will continue to conflict with the Rouge's pragmatism. This sort of things will keep happening until one changes, or just gives up trying to RP for the sake of party cohesion.