Quote from: Fiasco;624843Dissolving the party, much like, you know, roleplaying your character is a PLAYER call.

I absolutely disagree that dissolving the party is a player call, and yet I know it must be approached with utmost caution and deliberation.

I've spoken to a lot of my players and 7/8 agree it's for the best.  We won't make it official until next Sunday when we have the "hearing".

Let me point out that what you are effectively saying is that asking for a single good reason for an adventuring party to adventure in the DM's adventures is not within the DM's purview.

You are wrong.

Quote from: Blackhand;624841For instance, the whole point of this was to explore whether or not I could find a compelling reason to NOT dissolve the party.  The only answers have been those I addressed in the original post, or suggestions that would be reliant on it being "free range" rather than focused on these scenarios for a specific purpose.

Fair enough.  Most of the reasons you've got are metagame-based - "it's more fun to play than dissolve parties". They are reasons, just not the kind you want.

So, ignoring that - do the characters know their alignments are in conflict?  If they're not waving the "I'm evil!" and "I'm good!" banners around, maybe there's no reason for the good PC's to know there's an issue?

Is the rumor of gold in the temple common in Hommlet?

Does one of the PC's have a high CHA? Maybe he's a natural leader, and the rest will go along where he goes for gold'n'glory?

Maybe they consider their former employers complete incompetents, and think they can do a better job of sacking the place?

What if there isn't a single good reason, but a bunch of individual (and perhaps intensely private) reasons hwy they're sticking together? If every party member is seeking something different from sticking around in the party could that work?

If the big issue is the split between good and evil PCs, why not force the issue? Let the party go out with a bang rather than fizzling out; have the patron gods of the Good and Evil characters tell them that the time has come to purge the infidel from the party, and let the Neutral characters support whichever side they may. Whoever survives can form the core of the new party - or not, if they don't have a good reason to continue in the scenario - but you may as well have a bit of PvP fun since the party seems to be sliding that way anyway.

Quote from: PatW;624857Fair enough.  Most of the reasons you've got are metagame-based - "it's more fun to play than dissolve parties". They are reasons, just not the kind you want.

Oh, we're still going to play, even if this party dissolves...so the whole "it's more fun to play" doesn't really apply.

Yes, I want an articulate reason that I consider moving.

Quote from: PatW;624857So, ignoring that - do the characters know their alignments are in conflict?  If they're not waving the "I'm evil!" and "I'm good!" banners around, maybe there's no reason for the good PC's to know there's an issue?

Yes they do.  It's gone so far as the half orc worshipper of Hextor leaving the room when healing is performed by and being derisive to the cleric of Hieroneous, and we already had a paladin of Hieroneous elect to leave the party because of the Evil within it.  

He then made the servant of Hextor we're talking about.

Quote from: PatW;624857Is the rumor of gold in the temple common in Hommlet?

Only death has come from the ruins.  No gold or treasure has been seen.

Quote from: PatW;624857Does one of the PC's have a high CHA? Maybe he's a natural leader, and the rest will go along where he goes for gold'n'glory?

No.  All surviving PC's have CHA scores from 10 through 12.

Quote from: PatW;624857Maybe they consider their former employers complete incompetents, and think they can do a better job of sacking the place?

This is the same thing as I've already said.  There's no evidence that there is anything to be sacked.  Yet they probably feel good the no longer have employment.

Quote from: Warthur;624858What if there isn't a single good reason, but a bunch of individual (and perhaps intensely private) reasons hwy they're sticking together? If every party member is seeking something different from sticking around in the party could that work?

That could work.  I would want a compelling reason from each character, and no player has offered anything other than why he would want to leave, not stay.

Quote from: Warthur;624858If the big issue is the split between good and evil PCs, why not force the issue? Let the party go out with a bang rather than fizzling out; have the patron gods of the Good and Evil characters tell them that the time has come to purge the infidel from the party, and let the Neutral characters support whichever side they may. Whoever survives can form the core of the new party - or not, if they don't have a good reason to continue in the scenario - but you may as well have a bit of PvP fun since the party seems to be sliding that way anyway.

This would upset my player base.  We do quite a lot of PVP anyway, but how is this not as "ham fisted" as simply prompting / allowing the characters to leave?

Quote from: Blackhand;624864That could work.  I would want a compelling reason from each character, and no player has offered anything other than why he would want to leave, not stay.

Sounds like the party's doomed, then, if you put the players on the spot and say "Gimme a reason why your character might want to stick around in this scenario" and they can't justify it then they really have screwed the pooch when it comes to character creation and party hooks.

Would it be appropriate for your group's style to have the players propose reasons why each of their characters might be determined to crack the Temple when they're doing character gen? If these people are just showing up from out of the blue as blank slates without any pre-programmed urge to tackle the scenario then that might contribute to them struggling to find a reason to stick around.

QuoteThis would upset my player base.  We do quite a lot of PVP anyway, but how is this not as "ham fisted" as simply prompting / allowing the characters to leave?

Oh, it's ham-fisted as hell, but it's mildly less scorched earth than junking the current party completely and starting again. But if you and your group would prefer to start with new PCs then go for it.

I usually demand the "hook" upon creation and introduction to the party, via the whole "familiarity" thing.

The players who died would often make characters as quickly as possible, and after about 10 deaths the reasons stopped coming and I stopped enforcing it.  So they've had plenty of time...

I've also warned them several times that if something happened to the "core" of the party that was organizing an expedition if I didn't hear some reasons (i.e. good roleplaying) that the party would be at best penalized, at worst disbanded entirely.

I should have enforced it more strictly, and I will going forward to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

By the way, having them fight it out is only MILDLY less scorched earth, and that's only if there's more than one survivor.  At worst, this is way more polarizing towards the players (players would hate on each other more), rather than let them be shooed away by their arbitrary GM to make room for a real party with real motivations.

Yet you said it.  If I put them on the spot, all I get are blank looks.  This is going to be the key feature of the "hearing" next week.  In fact, it will serve as the catalystic example of why the party deserves to be disbanded.

Sounds like an odd situation - or maybe I'm just lucky with my players. Nobody I GM would dream of rolling up a new character for a campaign without thinking through how they fit in with the party (and the ongoing scenario, if there is one). The players in my current D&D game have expended vastly more energy on working out how their characters met and ended up becoming fast friends than on any other aspect of their character backgrounds.

Quote from: Warthur;624880Sounds like an odd situation - or maybe I'm just lucky with my players. Nobody I GM would dream of rolling up a new character for a campaign without thinking through how they fit in with the party (and the ongoing scenario, if there is one). The players in my current D&D game have expended vastly more energy on working out how their characters met and ended up becoming fast friends than on any other aspect of their character backgrounds.

Most of the time, the players are very good at this sort of thing.

I think it's the high mortality rate that has eroded that particular section of their thinking.

Quote from: Blackhand;624882Most of the time, the players are very good at this sort of thing.

I think it's the high mortality rate that has eroded that particular section of their thinking.

Well, it's probably very hard to get any sort of investment or interest in a character if they know they probably won't last more than a few sessions.

What is the exact kill count, if you don't mind my asking? As in, how many players, and how many characters have been killed off. What's the current character with the most longevity?

Quote from: Warthur;624880Sounds like an odd situation

It is an odd situation.  I thought the board might like to hear about it, since most of the answers I am getting are pointing to DM's deliberately fudging ALL the dice rolls involved in player death (in their favor to prevent a death) or simply letting them do whatever the hell they want.  I refute the storygame answers, and profess that I am an impartial referee.  I want to see what happens, and I don't have a "story" to promote.

All I want to do is get the Temple on our club's "experience" list and move on to the next one.  And I will run the game RaW, expressly as written in the scenario.  This isn't because I'm a shitty DM as some would have you believe, but because this experiment is important to myself and the club.

Quote from: Zachary The First;624884Well, it's probably very hard to get any sort of investment or interest in a character if they know they probably won't last more than a few sessions.

What is the exact kill count, if you don't mind my asking? As in, how many players, and how many characters have been killed off. What's the current character with the most longevity?

There are nine players, and the kill count is 18.

Once again, most relevant information is here.

We have played for 13 weeks.  The oldest character is only four weeks old, in game time like somewhere between 1 and 2 weeks.

Looking at the current roster, there's bound to be conflict.

You mention that pvp isn't unheard of. Have they been working as a team up till now?

Quote from: One Horse Town;624889Looking at the current roster, there's bound to be conflict.

You mention that pvp isn't unheard of. Have they been working as a team up till now?

Yes, under the purview of the two elven brothers who perished at the temple last session.  They were the ones who had moved to the forefront of planning and executing the expeditions...but most of their party was not happy with the Lawful Evil leader not divvying up treasure as they thought it should be...namely, by not divvying up.

Yeah, he intended to hold all the money as long as he could by simply refusing to pay folk.  Now he's dead and all the money is gone.

Yeah, i wouldn't give a fuck about that game either.

I'm seeing a pattern developing in this thread.

Blackhand: "Blah blah blah maybe it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah oh, and it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, coincidentially, I think it might be because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah, and yes, it's definitely because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, I'm sort of getting the feeling it might be because the PCs are dying too often."


Blackhand, the players are the way they are because they're disgruntled, and that in turn is because their PCs are dying too often. Dissolving the party and starting again, or taking it to another module, or anything else is not going to work as long as you keep killing the PCs this often. It doesn't matter how often you reconstitute the party from scratch, as long as you keep up the same lethality you will drive them into not giving a shit again and again and again. The only problem to your solution is to ease up on the grind.

Quote from: Premier;624899I'm seeing a pattern developing in this thread.

Blackhand: "Blah blah blah maybe it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah oh, and it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, coincidentially, I think it might be because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah, and yes, it's definitely because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, I'm sort of getting the feeling it might be because the PCs are dying too often."


Blackhand, the players are the way they are because they're disgruntled, and that in turn is because their PCs are dying too often. Dissolving the party and starting again, or taking it to another module, or anything else is not going to work as long as you keep killing the PCs this often. It doesn't matter how often you reconstitute the party from scratch, as long as you keep up the same lethality you will drive them into not giving a shit again and again and again. The only problem to your solution is to ease up on the grind.

I see you didn't read the part where I started the thread by saying it was the high mortality rate that was the culprit.  We are examining WHY.

So what you're saying is you have a problem with the ruleset? In the same breath you intimate that this is all my fault as DM.

Players getting killed is not my fault.  Other than I'm not fudging dice rolls.

This isn't the point of the thread, by the way.  However, I'll give three examples that will help illustrate my point.

Cleric is attacked by ghouls.  Fighters flank him to provide an escape route.  His action:  Stand where he is and cast spells.
Ghouls actions:  Kill him where he stands.

Illusionist / Thief makes it behind the gnoll line.  He moves to backstab one of the last gnolls and misses.  I rule in the players' favor that the gnoll is confused.
His Action:  Stand where he is and fight.
Gnoll action:  Kill him where he stands.

Four earth elementals jump out of the ground (you know what I'm talking about).  Elven brothers sound retreat, entire party backs out before anything bad happens.
Party Action:  Charge the Elementals.  I have given two players +2 weapons, one of which is double specialized.  One person does damage.  All other weapons ineffective.
Elemental: The nearest elemental attacks, nearly kill hardest fighter in one hit.  Other elementals patrol.
Party Action: Continue to fight, talk about retreating.
Elemental: Kill party leader.  Others patrol.
Party Action:  Retreat.  Elf brother attempts to get the body of his brother which has all the money.
Elemental: Kill the other brother.  4-32 damage, hit AC3 on a 5+.  3rd - 4th level fighters all the way around.

What you are suggesting is that it is MY FAULT AS DM that this is happening.  The point I wish to illustrate is that it is the player's fault, and they just haven't developed the mindset of these early adventures.  Yet, they will.

True, I could have said different dice scores so that they didn't die.  True, I could have had the monsters fail every attack just by decreeing they do so.

I could have implemented house rules saying that you don't die at 0 hp.  I could have decided someone in Hommlett could revive dead characters.

Yet that is not being true to the rules, to the scenario or to my players. I just feel that would make me into a shitty GM.  Not just a shitty GM, but a shitty storygamey GM.