Recently, I played a game in which the following occurred.
In playing Out of the Abyss, my character Zesstra, a drow rogue assassin, while in Mentol-Berith, approached the drow enclave alone while her party lay in hiding in an attempt to misrepresent myself as a representative of the Zhentarim and negotiate. I was rebuffed and turned away. I returned to my party and had a companion cast invisibility on me so that I might attempt to search the drow guards and surrounding gargoyles for an item. I inadvertently set off a glyph which caused me to lose invisibility and fall prone. The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded. Though it was very likely that I would be killed by the two drow guards and the six gargoyles, my companions made the decision to not intercede on my behalf and did nothing.
In my experience playing D&D, there comes the rare occasion, where the actions of the other player characters, are more a reflection of the attitude of the actual people playing the game toward a particular person in the group, than a reflection of the fictional characters that are being roleplayed. I think that this might be the case here. It seems to me to be inconceivable that your companions would not come to your aid. Though clearly, the characters that we choose to create and roleplay are diverse and unique, it is essential that they adhere to some basic principles. One of those principles is that you come to the aid of your companions, particularly in matters of life and death. If that is not the case, then clearly there is something else in play. Don't you agree?
Depends very heavily on context, but in general, yes, of course - a PC party is a strike team and is expected to act as a unit, not as a band of individuals who all happen to be doing the same thing at the same time. Every member of your party should have excellent backstory reasons to come save you, not to mention ongoing enlightened self-interest - being down a team member is a great way to die.
An example of a potential context where I wouldn't come save you would be if I knew the party could res you and the potential loss of your equipment paled in comparison to revealing to the drow enclave that we existed.
Last month I was playing a game with my regular group and, unbeknownst to most of the players at the table, one of the players wanted to roll up a new character and worked with the DM to have their current character go out in a blaze of glory. Since the rest of us didn't know what was going on, we "heroically" intervened to the point that we had to physically restrain and drag their character to safety. We were all like, "why are you being so nihilistic?" the DM was ltfao while this was going on.
Oddly enough, most of us disliked that character to the point that most of our characters at the table had come to blows with that player's character. When we finally understood what was going on, we gladly let that character go out in their player's desired blaze of glory.
You're probably right, that the actions of the player characters are more of a reflection of the people playing at the table at that moment. In our case, we couldn't imagine leaving anyone behind even if they secretly didn't want to come along.
Were you actually killed? The key phrase for me in reading that recap without knowing anything else is "The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded." For me, as a player, this would have been a cue for me to not intercede. It's almost like the DM saying "Before I have to have a TPK, I'm going to eliminate any chance of the others rushing in to save the rogue."
Were you actually killed? The key phrase for me in reading that recap without knowing anything else is "The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded." For me, as a player, this would have been a cue for me to not intercede. It's almost like the DM saying "Before I have to have a TPK, I'm going to eliminate any chance of the others rushing in to save the rogue."
This too strikes me as odd...
I as a DM would have likely rolled initiative and let things play out.
I as a player would have likely tried to intervene in some fashion.
Were you actually killed? The key phrase for me in reading that recap without knowing anything else is "The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded." For me, as a player, this would have been a cue for me to not intercede. It's almost like the DM saying "Before I have to have a TPK, I'm going to eliminate any chance of the others rushing in to save the rogue."
This brings up a good point I didn’t think about. Normally I’d believe if it was the plan that the party put together that involved endangering the life of one single character I feel like it’d be a no brainer. An unspoken part of the plan is that if things go south then you back me up, after all my character is putting their neck on the line to help the party progress forward.
But if the DM contextualized it as a no win situation I think I’d go over it as players before I made any moves.
Honestly this completely depends on the party and each member's personal ideals and goals. I can easily see a group of "evil" characters letting a member die or even a group of adventures that are tired of having to constantly deal with the same member getting into trouble and endangering the others.
The way you frame the question makes it quite clear you've already decided the answer - in your view, the party should have intervened and saved you.
My questions are as follows:
1.) Can you be saved? Two guards and six gargoyles is manageable for some/most parties, I would assume - but the ensuing flood of guards once the party alerts this headquarters to the attack being executed against them is a different matter. Turning a 1PK into a TPK accomplishes nothing.
2.) What is the likelihood you will be taken captive, rather than killed? The party may have decided that springing you free of capture is easier than trying to fight the entire compound to save you, especially if they're in a poor position to intervene.
3.) what is the likelihood you will simply be roughed up and escorted off the grounds? I have never read OotA and have no idea how it works, but you're a female drow in a drow enclave. It's entirely possible you'll simply be sent away in disgrace, while any attempt to rescue you may well involve the deaths of your allies.
The full story is not available here, and I imagine you won't find many folks willing to pass eternal judgment upon players acting in a situation that has only been imperfectly described to us. I can conceive of many situations in which I would not intervene to save the rogue if the rogue blew an infiltration mission, and I've been the rogue going on an infiltration mission I knew there would be no rescue from if I botched it. Kinda part and parcel of being the rogue, really - you get all those sweet skills, that killer Sneak Attack, and that cool Cunning Action on the understanding that you're built to be the disposable forward element for your party.
I've had a character of mine deliberately kill another PC at one point in a rather grim and gritty campaign, so if the question is whether you come to a companion's aid no matter what based on some unwritten principle - then no, I don't think that's a given. If the question is whether I'd have my PC come to your PC's aid in this particular situation, that depends on context. In many campaigns, absolutely. We'd usually have agreed on a certain tone of campaign during session zero or in informal pre-campaign conversations though. In other campaigns, possibly/probably not. Depends on context.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it depends on the personalities of the PCs.
The way most of my PCs are usually RPed, except when I play an assassin? Yes, my PC would probably jump in to save you, knowing his/her life is also forfeit.
On the other hand, I had planned to play a Bard at one point for 5e (which idea got zapped when I had to take over as DM), and she was going to start out as very unsure of herself. She wanted to write an epic poem about heroes, so she was going to be following the party around to write THEIR story, never realizing (at least at first) that she is a hero too, and is part of the story. Early on in this character's existence, she would not have jumped in herself to try and save you, although she might have encouraged the others to do so. She would simply not have had the confidence that she is a hero too. Once, if they ever did, the other PCs had convinced her that she, too, is as much a hero as they are, or once she had come to this conclusion herself, then yes, she jumps in to save you. So it would depend on just how confident she was feeling at that point in her life.
But if I'm playing something like a Paladin or the goliath Druid I came up with, they are wading into that fight and they will die trying to save you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Does the character being caught mean the rest of the PCs are going to be found anyway so we might as well attack?
If letting the one scout get eaten means the rest of the party can survive, well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
With respect, I think it boils down to expectations. Unfortunately, it turns out that the whole group doesn't have the same expectations of the game they're playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Most of my characters would attempt to save them.My primary character zenlos,is a doctor and would have the heart attack should they actually see a friend die.Thus they try very hard to make things not die being are party healer and pretty good tank.
And the OP comes across as 'What ever I do, regardless of risks to the party, the party should bail me out.' That is an unrealistic, selfish expectation, if true.
That depends on the party's decision making process. If "whatever I do" really means "whatever the party agrees we'll do", that expectation becomes a lot more realistic. My favourite session zero player contract for the campaign is to play heroic characters who try to do good, stand up for each other and decide things together. It's an idealistic type of game, it's certainly not what I play every campaign or even ask to have every campaign, but it works for a lot of groups - and in this case might well have resulted in the party coming to the rescue of their companion right away. I don't think this group really established the tone of their campaign really well though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
First, the roleplay. My elf cleric was eliminated from a longish campaign when she, safely hiding, gave herself up to stabilize a dying friend. But if it’s the first session and some edgy, rude rogue has got himself in over his head, yeah, he can die, I don’t care. How much my character cares about the other makes a big difference. But in general, even if my character is neutral, they’ll try to save an ally.
Second, the situation. If it’s clear the ally can’t be saved, or that we’d be at major risk of a TPK saving them, it’s time to cut our losses. So if we’re already fleeing from a hugely failed combat and someone is felled by an arrow, I’m not turning around to fight just for a chance to save them. We’re warriors, that’s what must be done, nothing personal. And if the situation is hopeless and unnecessary, and the ally brought it on themselves, they can die. I’m not about to back the idiot paladin who jumped the lich at level one, or the idiot rogue who thought stealing the king’s crown was a good idea. But again, in general, I’ll try to fight.
Now, there’s not enough detail to say whether I would have jumped in to save your character, but I will say this. Your tone, trying to pin the others’ reluctance on them not liking you out of game, is a little uncalled for. It sounds like you’re more interested in validation than discussion, and there’s deeper interpersonal issues that, for you, your group members, or both, are poisoning your game.
I don’t know if it’s them or you or both that’s at fault, but I do know that that’s the real problem here, and you’re probably better off trying to fix it, or walking away from it, than posting about the symptoms on here. I don’t mean to be harsh and I know these issues are complicated: so good luck. I hope your game improves.
Wow! I'm really shocked by some of the responses. I guess I hold myself and others to a higher standard.
To answer some of your questions,
1) I proposed the idea of going alone and the group supported it.
2) I could have been saved. I possess the darkness spell, the mobile feat, and devil's sight. If only one of the enemies surrounding me had been killed or moved, I could easily have retreated to safety.
3) I could have been killed. As it turns out, I was not. I was revived and taken prisoner. My companions argued that I was given the option of surrender, however my character was sold into slavery as a child by her own family and holds no love for the drow. She later became an assassin. I do not believe my character would have accepted surrender by choice.
4) The risk to the party was minimal. There is no police presence in Mentol-Derith. The party had plenty of room to retreat if necessary. As a level 8 party, two guards and six gargoyles were manageable. While it is true the defenses inside the enclave may have presented a challenge, again there was plenty of room to retreat.
I mean... in the end you still sound like you are trying to tell other people how they should RP their characters.
Would you accept instructions from the other players in how to play your character? I'm guessing not. And if not, then why do you seem to believe you are in a position to dictate to them how they should have played their characters.
Again, if we think to my bard... at low level, as I was intending to play her, with her lack of self-confidence, she would not have believed that jumping in would have helped you, because she didn't trust in herself yet. If we are at the table together and you started grumbling that, for metagame reasons, I could have saved you, I'd not have been pleased, as a player... You don't get to tell other people who to play their PCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A party of adventurers usually needs it's entire team to be successful. It's simply in everyone's best interest to do what they can to keep all members alive.
Given what you have said, it seems to me like you could have gotten away yourself. Action Darkness, Bonus action Disengage, move at your 40 speed to run the heck away. I understand being in the moment and not coming up with the perfect solution, but instead of blaming your party members for not saving you mayhaps taking some of the blame since you totally could have gotten away RAW.
Generally speaking I play my PCs to be party-centric and would leap to the aid of my companion. However, if said companion went solo and got into trouble often, then I might just let the consequences fall.
Given what was said, it is possible the group didn't want to arouse the entire base and get overwhelmed. Nobody knew the threat level otherwise there would be no need for scouting. If the group as a whole was confident of success, then they would have all gone down and kicked butt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently, I played a game in which the following occurred.
In playing Out of the Abyss, my character Zesstra, a drow rogue assassin, while in Mentol-Berith, approached the drow enclave alone while her party lay in hiding in an attempt to misrepresent myself as a representative of the Zhentarim and negotiate. I was rebuffed and turned away. I returned to my party and had a companion cast invisibility on me so that I might attempt to search the drow guards and surrounding gargoyles for an item. I inadvertently set off a glyph which caused me to lose invisibility and fall prone. The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded. Though it was very likely that I would be killed by the two drow guards and the six gargoyles, my companions made the decision to not intercede on my behalf and did nothing.
In my experience playing D&D, there comes the rare occasion, where the actions of the other player characters, are more a reflection of the attitude of the actual people playing the game toward a particular person in the group, than a reflection of the fictional characters that are being roleplayed. I think that this might be the case here. It seems to me to be inconceivable that your companions would not come to your aid. Though clearly, the characters that we choose to create and roleplay are diverse and unique, it is essential that they adhere to some basic principles. One of those principles is that you come to the aid of your companions, particularly in matters of life and death. If that is not the case, then clearly there is something else in play. Don't you agree?
What do you think?
Depends very heavily on context, but in general, yes, of course - a PC party is a strike team and is expected to act as a unit, not as a band of individuals who all happen to be doing the same thing at the same time. Every member of your party should have excellent backstory reasons to come save you, not to mention ongoing enlightened self-interest - being down a team member is a great way to die.
An example of a potential context where I wouldn't come save you would be if I knew the party could res you and the potential loss of your equipment paled in comparison to revealing to the drow enclave that we existed.
Last month I was playing a game with my regular group and, unbeknownst to most of the players at the table, one of the players wanted to roll up a new character and worked with the DM to have their current character go out in a blaze of glory. Since the rest of us didn't know what was going on, we "heroically" intervened to the point that we had to physically restrain and drag their character to safety. We were all like, "why are you being so nihilistic?" the DM was ltfao while this was going on.
Oddly enough, most of us disliked that character to the point that most of our characters at the table had come to blows with that player's character. When we finally understood what was going on, we gladly let that character go out in their player's desired blaze of glory.
You're probably right, that the actions of the player characters are more of a reflection of the people playing at the table at that moment. In our case, we couldn't imagine leaving anyone behind even if they secretly didn't want to come along.
Were you actually killed? The key phrase for me in reading that recap without knowing anything else is "The DM determined that before initiative was rolled I was surrounded." For me, as a player, this would have been a cue for me to not intercede. It's almost like the DM saying "Before I have to have a TPK, I'm going to eliminate any chance of the others rushing in to save the rogue."
This too strikes me as odd...
I as a DM would have likely rolled initiative and let things play out.
I as a player would have likely tried to intervene in some fashion.
This brings up a good point I didn’t think about.
Normally I’d believe if it was the plan that the party put together that involved endangering the life of one single character I feel like it’d be a no brainer. An unspoken part of the plan is that if things go south then you back me up, after all my character is putting their neck on the line to help the party progress forward.
But if the DM contextualized it as a no win situation I think I’d go over it as players before I made any moves.
Honestly this completely depends on the party and each member's personal ideals and goals. I can easily see a group of "evil" characters letting a member die or even a group of adventures that are tired of having to constantly deal with the same member getting into trouble and endangering the others.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The way you frame the question makes it quite clear you've already decided the answer - in your view, the party should have intervened and saved you.
My questions are as follows:
1.) Can you be saved? Two guards and six gargoyles is manageable for some/most parties, I would assume - but the ensuing flood of guards once the party alerts this headquarters to the attack being executed against them is a different matter. Turning a 1PK into a TPK accomplishes nothing.
2.) What is the likelihood you will be taken captive, rather than killed? The party may have decided that springing you free of capture is easier than trying to fight the entire compound to save you, especially if they're in a poor position to intervene.
3.) what is the likelihood you will simply be roughed up and escorted off the grounds? I have never read OotA and have no idea how it works, but you're a female drow in a drow enclave. It's entirely possible you'll simply be sent away in disgrace, while any attempt to rescue you may well involve the deaths of your allies.
The full story is not available here, and I imagine you won't find many folks willing to pass eternal judgment upon players acting in a situation that has only been imperfectly described to us. I can conceive of many situations in which I would not intervene to save the rogue if the rogue blew an infiltration mission, and I've been the rogue going on an infiltration mission I knew there would be no rescue from if I botched it. Kinda part and parcel of being the rogue, really - you get all those sweet skills, that killer Sneak Attack, and that cool Cunning Action on the understanding that you're built to be the disposable forward element for your party.
Please do not contact or message me.
I've had a character of mine deliberately kill another PC at one point in a rather grim and gritty campaign, so if the question is whether you come to a companion's aid no matter what based on some unwritten principle - then no, I don't think that's a given. If the question is whether I'd have my PC come to your PC's aid in this particular situation, that depends on context. In many campaigns, absolutely. We'd usually have agreed on a certain tone of campaign during session zero or in informal pre-campaign conversations though. In other campaigns, possibly/probably not. Depends on context.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it depends on the personalities of the PCs.
The way most of my PCs are usually RPed, except when I play an assassin? Yes, my PC would probably jump in to save you, knowing his/her life is also forfeit.
On the other hand, I had planned to play a Bard at one point for 5e (which idea got zapped when I had to take over as DM), and she was going to start out as very unsure of herself. She wanted to write an epic poem about heroes, so she was going to be following the party around to write THEIR story, never realizing (at least at first) that she is a hero too, and is part of the story. Early on in this character's existence, she would not have jumped in herself to try and save you, although she might have encouraged the others to do so. She would simply not have had the confidence that she is a hero too. Once, if they ever did, the other PCs had convinced her that she, too, is as much a hero as they are, or once she had come to this conclusion herself, then yes, she jumps in to save you. So it would depend on just how confident she was feeling at that point in her life.
But if I'm playing something like a Paladin or the goliath Druid I came up with, they are wading into that fight and they will die trying to save you.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It boils down to two issues
If letting the one scout get eaten means the rest of the party can survive, well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
With respect, I think it boils down to expectations. Unfortunately, it turns out that the whole group doesn't have the same expectations of the game they're playing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Most of my characters would attempt to save them.My primary character zenlos,is a doctor and would have the heart attack should they actually see a friend die.Thus they try very hard to make things not die being are party healer and pretty good tank.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
That depends on the party's decision making process. If "whatever I do" really means "whatever the party agrees we'll do", that expectation becomes a lot more realistic. My favourite session zero player contract for the campaign is to play heroic characters who try to do good, stand up for each other and decide things together. It's an idealistic type of game, it's certainly not what I play every campaign or even ask to have every campaign, but it works for a lot of groups - and in this case might well have resulted in the party coming to the rescue of their companion right away. I don't think this group really established the tone of their campaign really well though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It depends on the roleplay and the situation.
First, the roleplay. My elf cleric was eliminated from a longish campaign when she, safely hiding, gave herself up to stabilize a dying friend. But if it’s the first session and some edgy, rude rogue has got himself in over his head, yeah, he can die, I don’t care. How much my character cares about the other makes a big difference. But in general, even if my character is neutral, they’ll try to save an ally.
Second, the situation. If it’s clear the ally can’t be saved, or that we’d be at major risk of a TPK saving them, it’s time to cut our losses. So if we’re already fleeing from a hugely failed combat and someone is felled by an arrow, I’m not turning around to fight just for a chance to save them. We’re warriors, that’s what must be done, nothing personal. And if the situation is hopeless and unnecessary, and the ally brought it on themselves, they can die. I’m not about to back the idiot paladin who jumped the lich at level one, or the idiot rogue who thought stealing the king’s crown was a good idea. But again, in general, I’ll try to fight.
Now, there’s not enough detail to say whether I would have jumped in to save your character, but I will say this. Your tone, trying to pin the others’ reluctance on them not liking you out of game, is a little uncalled for. It sounds like you’re more interested in validation than discussion, and there’s deeper interpersonal issues that, for you, your group members, or both, are poisoning your game.
I don’t know if it’s them or you or both that’s at fault, but I do know that that’s the real problem here, and you’re probably better off trying to fix it, or walking away from it, than posting about the symptoms on here. I don’t mean to be harsh and I know these issues are complicated: so good luck. I hope your game improves.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Wow! I'm really shocked by some of the responses. I guess I hold myself and others to a higher standard.
To answer some of your questions,
1) I proposed the idea of going alone and the group supported it.
2) I could have been saved. I possess the darkness spell, the mobile feat, and devil's sight. If only one of the enemies surrounding me had been killed or moved, I could easily have retreated to safety.
3) I could have been killed. As it turns out, I was not. I was revived and taken prisoner. My companions argued that I was given the option of surrender, however my character was sold into slavery as a child by her own family and holds no love for the drow. She later became an assassin. I do not believe my character would have accepted surrender by choice.
4) The risk to the party was minimal. There is no police presence in Mentol-Derith. The party had plenty of room to retreat if necessary. As a level 8 party, two guards and six gargoyles were manageable. While it is true the defenses inside the enclave may have presented a challenge, again there was plenty of room to retreat.
I mean... in the end you still sound like you are trying to tell other people how they should RP their characters.
Would you accept instructions from the other players in how to play your character? I'm guessing not. And if not, then why do you seem to believe you are in a position to dictate to them how they should have played their characters.
Again, if we think to my bard... at low level, as I was intending to play her, with her lack of self-confidence, she would not have believed that jumping in would have helped you, because she didn't trust in herself yet. If we are at the table together and you started grumbling that, for metagame reasons, I could have saved you, I'd not have been pleased, as a player... You don't get to tell other people who to play their PCs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A party of adventurers usually needs it's entire team to be successful. It's simply in everyone's best interest to do what they can to keep all members alive.
Given what you have said, it seems to me like you could have gotten away yourself. Action Darkness, Bonus action Disengage, move at your 40 speed to run the heck away. I understand being in the moment and not coming up with the perfect solution, but instead of blaming your party members for not saving you mayhaps taking some of the blame since you totally could have gotten away RAW.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Generally speaking I play my PCs to be party-centric and would leap to the aid of my companion. However, if said companion went solo and got into trouble often, then I might just let the consequences fall.
Given what was said, it is possible the group didn't want to arouse the entire base and get overwhelmed. Nobody knew the threat level otherwise there would be no need for scouting. If the group as a whole was confident of success, then they would have all gone down and kicked butt.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale