Family gathered to play for the first time. I'm seeing possible my guy in my actions but want to learn was it me or the other person. Playing starter set and we get to goblins cave early on. We killed owl bear before rescuing human. While I'm hiding in corridor two players enter cave to negotiate release of prisoner. Goblin leader wants proof that we killed him. I go back and cut off the head and staying hidden give to thief who carries it in.
We won't give head without getting prisoner and goblin won't give up prisoner without significant additional money.
I run back to cave and grab chest with coins we found hoping we can bribe goblin leader. While I am gone negotiating fighter offers up precious necklace which seems to placate goblin. Up my return with chest sorcerer in party holds up hand like stop sign so I wait out room while negotiating finished. When we get to prisoner he whispered don't trust them. And when the party goes to leave one goblin sees party leaving and shoots at them.
Here is where all went to hell and game ended. I want to protect party dragging prisoner out thinking all 7 goblins will attack. So I run around corner to toss chest onto floor to cause distraction so we can get out alive with prisoner. Sorcerer tried to trip me ( never spoke a word) then thief in party seeing me about to toss chest attacks me as I throw it.
Rest of party and prisoner except thief run safely out of cave to camp. Thief runs back in to collect coin and I attack thief for attacking me. I state I can't be in the party any more and I'm blamed for being the Guy overplaying character?
One thing about my character. I'm a ranger who lived alone and owned nothing of any value. During campaign up to that point I didn't loot a single corpse or ask for a single copper. I was asked to escort troop because of my intimate knowledge of the area and good at getting everyone to goal safely. I was acting to ensure safety of team and getting prisoner safely from cave.
In hindsight three hours later as I've read forums I realize I could have grabbed a couple of handfuls of coins instead of the whole chest. But was I acting to much at detriment to the game or was other party member attacking me uncalled for?
Again I was playing first campaign with all newbies but I was pretty much told by everyone that by wanting to attack the member who attacked me I was outside of the normal scope of the game and DM cancelled the game going forward.
To me that is a cut-throat party. And you say this is all family members? I would not want to be around that table at Thanksgiving...
From your description (and realizing it is only yours and your fellow players might describe this account differently), I thought trying to throw the gold to distract was a good idea, and I don't see why they would have tried to trip you or attack you. And it is mind-boggling to me that after two of them went after you, that people thought you were at fault for doing what (again, according to your telling of this story) appears to be self defense. So him attacking you was not "outside the normal scope of the game" but you attacking him was outside it? That really doesn't make much sense to me.
In general, in D&D, unless you have agreed to a cut-throat game (which some people like), people usually do not make attack rolls or often even skill checks against their fellow party members. Again, based on your description, in the situation described, even the Sorcerer trying to trip you is equivalent to an attack. The goblins are coming, you trip and go prone, and now the goblins get to attack you while you are trying to get up and get your feet under you. Just the trip might have caused you to die to the goblins (again, given what you have described).
It also sounds to me like this party is highly treasure-motivated, to the point that they are (apparently?) willing to kill each other over losing some coin. That's the kind of thing you all need to talk about before the campaign starts, along with whether you are going to do a cut-throat game or not.
From where I sit, your group would have benefited from the so-called "session zero" in which everyone sits around and rather than playing (much) D&D, you start by the DM laying out the ground rules and everyone coming to an agreement on things like... are you going to be heroes or mercs? Are you going to be cooperative or cut-throat? Are you going to be doing a lot of dungeon-crawling and looting or more social RP? Are you going to discuss things with each other out of character (player to player) or only do in-character things and live with the consequences? And so forth. These ground rules should be established first, and if they had, your group probably would not have gone into this death spiral.
What to do about it going forward? My advice would be to go back to the spot where it all blew up, and retcon (retroactively alter the continuity) everything that happened after. I.e., it's a "do over," like when you were a kid and the ball got caught up in the trees. Lesson learned, you don't try to throw the whole chest, no one will then try to trip you, and the adventure proceeds as normal and you continue. Basically, reboot the scenario to the last point where everyone agrees it was working and re-do everything else. I mean, there is no rule saying you can't do that.
But then, the DM might not want to. That's another odd part to the story -- the DM, having a group of newbies (including you) at the table and canceling the game going forward because newbies did the sorts of things newbies will do seems a extreme. But if a DM doesn't want to run a game, there's not much you can do -- you definitely don't want to try to make someone DM a campaign that doesn't want to.
One last option for you - if the DM doesn't want to run the game anymore, you could offer to be DM, and run a session zero like I described. There are some good YouTube videos (Dungeon Dudes have a great one) on how to do s session zero and what you need to do in it.
Yes, I see newbie mistakes. Starting with their faults, I agree that even tripping you was out of line, but the next guy that attacked you was the one who crossed the point of no return. If their character is willing to attack a party mate for giving up some gold, that’s not a game-friendly character. The newbie mistake is thinking gold accumulation is how you win D&D. Yeah, there’s stuff you can do with gold—if the DM presents you with circumstances where you can make use of it. But my experience is that most of the game happens on the road, earning ever more without much time to spend it.
On your end, creating a character who sees little value in possessions and money sounds good and flavorful, but in practice they’re hard to work with as a party, especially navigating official material. It’s something that the other players should have a right to veto during character creation (session 0 as mentioned above). Simply saying “my thought for this character is they see little value in wealth. Which might play out like I don’t think to search bodies, or might give away more than others would find reasonable. But may also mean you all get my share of loot as often as not.” gives them a chance to say “I like the part where we get your loot, but if you’re not even searching bodies, we’re going to miss story beats and magic items, and I’m not really OK with that.”
I will add that’s very minor compared with the breech of trust committed by attacking a party mate in the presence of deadly enemies. I hope you all can hit reset and get in sync to play again.
Yeah, there’s stuff you can do with gold—if the DM presents you with circumstances where you can make use of it. But my experience is that most of the game happens on the road, earning ever more without much time to spend it.
This is definitely true -- most of the scenes you are in will not have been aided by you having had a lot of gold coin. I mean sure, you need to buy better armor and weapons to a degree, but realistically, most of what you are doing is based on your abilities. Additionally after a few levels even a chest of gold will not be a big deal to your party.
On your end, creating a character who sees little value in possessions and money sounds good and flavorful, but in practice they’re hard to work with as a party, especially navigating official material.
This is also an important point. It's fine to make up atypical characters (even advisable, and fun!), but you have to make sure that by playing your character, you are not doing something that will ruin everyone else's fun.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Family gathered to play for the first time. I'm seeing possible my guy in my actions but want to learn was it me or the other person. Playing starter set and we get to goblins cave early on. We killed owl bear before rescuing human. While I'm hiding in corridor two players enter cave to negotiate release of prisoner. Goblin leader wants proof that we killed him. I go back and cut off the head and staying hidden give to thief who carries it in.
We won't give head without getting prisoner and goblin won't give up prisoner without significant additional money.
I run back to cave and grab chest with coins we found hoping we can bribe goblin leader. While I am gone negotiating fighter offers up precious necklace which seems to placate goblin. Up my return with chest sorcerer in party holds up hand like stop sign so I wait out room while negotiating finished. When we get to prisoner he whispered don't trust them. And when the party goes to leave one goblin sees party leaving and shoots at them.
Here is where all went to hell and game ended. I want to protect party dragging prisoner out thinking all 7 goblins will attack. So I run around corner to toss chest onto floor to cause distraction so we can get out alive with prisoner. Sorcerer tried to trip me ( never spoke a word) then thief in party seeing me about to toss chest attacks me as I throw it.
Rest of party and prisoner except thief run safely out of cave to camp. Thief runs back in to collect coin and I attack thief for attacking me. I state I can't be in the party any more and I'm blamed for being the Guy overplaying character?
One thing about my character. I'm a ranger who lived alone and owned nothing of any value. During campaign up to that point I didn't loot a single corpse or ask for a single copper. I was asked to escort troop because of my intimate knowledge of the area and good at getting everyone to goal safely. I was acting to ensure safety of team and getting prisoner safely from cave.
In hindsight three hours later as I've read forums I realize I could have grabbed a couple of handfuls of coins instead of the whole chest. But was I acting to much at detriment to the game or was other party member attacking me uncalled for?
Again I was playing first campaign with all newbies but I was pretty much told by everyone that by wanting to attack the member who attacked me I was outside of the normal scope of the game and DM cancelled the game going forward.
Let me have it.
Wow.
To me that is a cut-throat party. And you say this is all family members? I would not want to be around that table at Thanksgiving...
From your description (and realizing it is only yours and your fellow players might describe this account differently), I thought trying to throw the gold to distract was a good idea, and I don't see why they would have tried to trip you or attack you. And it is mind-boggling to me that after two of them went after you, that people thought you were at fault for doing what (again, according to your telling of this story) appears to be self defense. So him attacking you was not "outside the normal scope of the game" but you attacking him was outside it? That really doesn't make much sense to me.
In general, in D&D, unless you have agreed to a cut-throat game (which some people like), people usually do not make attack rolls or often even skill checks against their fellow party members. Again, based on your description, in the situation described, even the Sorcerer trying to trip you is equivalent to an attack. The goblins are coming, you trip and go prone, and now the goblins get to attack you while you are trying to get up and get your feet under you. Just the trip might have caused you to die to the goblins (again, given what you have described).
It also sounds to me like this party is highly treasure-motivated, to the point that they are (apparently?) willing to kill each other over losing some coin. That's the kind of thing you all need to talk about before the campaign starts, along with whether you are going to do a cut-throat game or not.
From where I sit, your group would have benefited from the so-called "session zero" in which everyone sits around and rather than playing (much) D&D, you start by the DM laying out the ground rules and everyone coming to an agreement on things like... are you going to be heroes or mercs? Are you going to be cooperative or cut-throat? Are you going to be doing a lot of dungeon-crawling and looting or more social RP? Are you going to discuss things with each other out of character (player to player) or only do in-character things and live with the consequences? And so forth. These ground rules should be established first, and if they had, your group probably would not have gone into this death spiral.
What to do about it going forward? My advice would be to go back to the spot where it all blew up, and retcon (retroactively alter the continuity) everything that happened after. I.e., it's a "do over," like when you were a kid and the ball got caught up in the trees. Lesson learned, you don't try to throw the whole chest, no one will then try to trip you, and the adventure proceeds as normal and you continue. Basically, reboot the scenario to the last point where everyone agrees it was working and re-do everything else. I mean, there is no rule saying you can't do that.
But then, the DM might not want to. That's another odd part to the story -- the DM, having a group of newbies (including you) at the table and canceling the game going forward because newbies did the sorts of things newbies will do seems a extreme. But if a DM doesn't want to run a game, there's not much you can do -- you definitely don't want to try to make someone DM a campaign that doesn't want to.
One last option for you - if the DM doesn't want to run the game anymore, you could offer to be DM, and run a session zero like I described. There are some good YouTube videos (Dungeon Dudes have a great one) on how to do s session zero and what you need to do in it.
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.
Yes, I see newbie mistakes. Starting with their faults, I agree that even tripping you was out of line, but the next guy that attacked you was the one who crossed the point of no return. If their character is willing to attack a party mate for giving up some gold, that’s not a game-friendly character. The newbie mistake is thinking gold accumulation is how you win D&D. Yeah, there’s stuff you can do with gold—if the DM presents you with circumstances where you can make use of it. But my experience is that most of the game happens on the road, earning ever more without much time to spend it.
On your end, creating a character who sees little value in possessions and money sounds good and flavorful, but in practice they’re hard to work with as a party, especially navigating official material. It’s something that the other players should have a right to veto during character creation (session 0 as mentioned above). Simply saying “my thought for this character is they see little value in wealth. Which might play out like I don’t think to search bodies, or might give away more than others would find reasonable. But may also mean you all get my share of loot as often as not.” gives them a chance to say “I like the part where we get your loot, but if you’re not even searching bodies, we’re going to miss story beats and magic items, and I’m not really OK with that.”
I will add that’s very minor compared with the breech of trust committed by attacking a party mate in the presence of deadly enemies. I hope you all can hit reset and get in sync to play again.
Thank you for replying and I will talk to the DM
This is definitely true -- most of the scenes you are in will not have been aided by you having had a lot of gold coin. I mean sure, you need to buy better armor and weapons to a degree, but realistically, most of what you are doing is based on your abilities. Additionally after a few levels even a chest of gold will not be a big deal to your party.
This is also an important point. It's fine to make up atypical characters (even advisable, and fun!), but you have to make sure that by playing your character, you are not doing something that will ruin everyone else's fun.
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.