My character was Ganth Ralpar in the campaign Blackhand is currently running and discussing. I can honestly say that as the weeks have gone by it has gotten harder and harder to justify the group traveling and working together.

The Brothers Ralpar functioned together because they ultimately had a goal they were both working towards together. But even then some decisions were difficult to make and follow through with due to alignment. So it does make sense that the current party will have a falling out. Even with the brothers leading the group, the reasons for continuing with the rest of the party were getting stretched thin.

I suppose some people would have no issue with this, but if I'm truly roleplaying my character then I have to take into consideration what he would think of everyone else trying to loot the bodies of their fallen comrades and then leave them in the most evil place he has ever seen. It just doesn't make sense to go along with all of that when my character is of a good alignment.

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.

We aren't disgruntled. A character dying is part of the game. The way I see it is that we are making small mistakes that really become big mistakes. When we first started playing we kicked in doors and tried to chop the head off of everything all at once. We tried to play like we were invulnerable/invincible and we found it didn't work (duh). We like rules. A lot. I would hate to think that I survived only because the DM fudged the rules so my mistake wasn't so severe. I want to learn from my mistakes not have them forgiven before I know I made them.

It's not a question of grind. It comes down to how we choose to play our characters.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902Four 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.
.

Just so you know, I wasn't going for the money. I was trying to retrieve the body of my older brother! We had left Hambone down there I wasn't gonna leave another brother to that cursed place.

I was just reading (listening to) this the other day:

QuoteFortunately, there's an easy way to fix this. Instead of arguing with the player about his character's motivations, let the player figure it out. Be honest and tell him that this is what you need to get things started.

Seems like sound advice.  You've already stated that there's a tacit agreement to play through the module come hell or high water, so asking them to make things work in keeping with that goal doesn't seem to need a rule at all.

Quote from: Malphaeus;624907Just so you know, I wasn't going for the money. I was trying to retrieve the body of my older brother! We had left Hambone down there I wasn't gonna leave another brother to that cursed place.

I know that, and you should really be applauded.  Everyone else was running the other way.

2/3 of the party was Evil, though - and were only interested in the money.  Though at that moment, they were only interested in getting away as fast as possible.

Remember this:

"Fuck yeah, we retreat!"  Very loud, very matter of fact how-could-you-ask-me-that sort of way.

Quote from: Premier;624827*This is a pet peeve of mine. We all have the ability to navigate large and expansive building complexes with a rather decent accuracy based on nothing more than having been there once or twice before. Without ever having mapped it in the first place. And yet, many DMs want to enforce a stupidly irrealistic form of amnesia where professional explorers, spelunkers and adventurers are apparently brain damaged and can't remember anything if they're not holding a map of it in their hands.

Actually in this case it makes total sense. Because most of the party were new characters that hadn't delved very deep, if at all, into the temple. And so wouldn't have the prior knowledge of what was behind all those doors and down all those corridors. So if the map guy dies and no one retrieves his stuff then the maps are lost. Vaguely remembering the general layout isn't the same as a map.

Quote from: Blackhand;624913Remember this:

"Fuck yeah, we retreat!"  Very loud, very matter of fact how-could-you-ask-me-that sort of way.

Yeah, they didn't even check to see if the earth elemental was following. It was just FLEE!!  They failed their morale check. Horribly.

But the joke was on them for leaving the bodies. They lost all sorts of loot and the maps.

I think a huge part of the problem is that there are expectations placed upon character ability.

Think about it, we play RaW...by every single game.

So players whose only experience is 3e or Pathfinder might find the whole thing...a little bit different.  The survival rate is greater in those games because they are largely forgiving with regards to how fast characters die...there's the whole -10 thing.

Even Warhammer and Dark Heresy are more forgiving due to the critical hit system.  You don't die, you lose a finger or an eye.  Even if you do die, there's always the Fate Point.

Not so for AD&D.  I think the mentality will change when we start a new party.

Looking forward to next weekend!

ive been playing in this campaign from the beginning, and i must say ive enjoyed the hell out of it. However i must say the suspention of disbelief decreased everytime we have a new party member show up, to sign up for a 25% percent chance of death in a dungeon of horrors. The current characters dont have a personal stake in the adventure. And i feel my DMs frustration it isnt really a roleplaying game unless we actually try to make decisions based on what our characters would actually do. I hate to say it but Asheron the 3rd level magic user would probably get the hell out of the Hommlet area, and take a vacation in Greyhawk city. That being said the sheer amout of death that our previosu characters have suffered is actually a great plot thread for a party of "true hardened dungeoneers" to take up the challenge. Representatives of the Dyvers, and greyhawk city have already been made aware of the situation at the temple, and the evil within must bedealt with. perhaps these authoirty figures in the area might gather a handpicked party to take up the mantle. But during character generation we may want to include some ground rules.

1. No evil characters, i mean we are fighting an evil temple cult, not recruting for it.

2. All the characters should know each other before the adventure. Simply to foster familiarity, and also to make a persons "characters" death meaningful.

3. The characters should coordinate their abiilities, the 2nd ed. arms and equip guide suggests adventurers use similar polearms and shields to maximize group tactics, this will cut down on party deaths. And less need for our poor dm to stuggle to find reasons the party would hang out.

4. Perhaps we have a patron from the Dyvers or Greyhawk city, who could refer us to replacements for the party if the unfortunate does happen.

Our group really has needed to get on the same page for a while, we love the game but everyone is going in tottally different directions. We have had some new players lately and i dont know if they UNDERSTAND (or care about)completely the adventuring group dynamic.

I intend to make the temple my puppydog bitch. if we need a new party to do that. then its a good thing. It just makes our other characters deaths interesting anecdotes, for patrons of the Welcome Wench to tell as an interesting prelude, to the "REAL" adventuring team to show up.

Quote from: Blackhand;624825Who the hell are you?

I'm the Juggernaut bitch!

Quote from: Blackhand;624825It's not a player decision if I don't feel that alignment and motivation are being fulfilled, i.e. roleplayed.

Alignments change to the fit the actions of the character. In 1e, there are XP penalties for alignment change if the DM wants throw them down.

If the Good god doesn't want his spells being used to help Evil PCs, then the spells don't work or the cleric doesn't get any more spells until he atones.
 
This shit ain't rocket science.

Quote from: Fiasco;624835Sounds like a case of the DM cracking the sads to me. Also sounds like the players don't give much of a shit anymore, possibly due to the high attrition rate.

It's AD&D with PCs as disposable pawns.

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.

You are the DM. It's not your place to dissolve the party. Dissolve the campaign / Restart the Campaign / Change to another Campaign - these are the DM choices.

You allowed the PCs to be any alignment. Thus, you invited this disaster and now you have to enforce the alignment issues within the party. The paladin detects who is evil and knows it. He get dreams from his god asking WTF dude?

And when the Chaotic Evil guy acts Neutral, you get two choices:

1) Slap him with an XP penalty.
2) Warn him that if he takes an action out of his alignment, he will be slapped with an XP penalty and begin to change alignment.

I play OD&D so I use Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral and I don't read Chaos = Evil, but mixed parties do have their issues and I let the players do their thing BUT I will tell a player than an action doesn't make sense for their character and let them choose from there.

Usually, a "wait a second, you're Lawful" is enough for the player to rethink what they are about to do OR they will give me a good reason why their character is about to take that action.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902The 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.

Or just get bored of your grindfest and join the legion of people who think AD&D is a game where your PC is a disposable pawn and you just meaninglessly die every session or two because your DM is being a dick.

You know they don't have a grasp of how to play or what the challenges they are facing, but instead you take away any incentive to keep playing and take away any reason to immerse themselves in their character.

It sounds like the party is pretty much dissolved anyway.

Quote from: Blackhand;624867I 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.  

By the way, having them fight it out is only MILDLY less scorched earth

I guess, but the consequences are far worse.

Quote from: Blackhand;624893but 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.

Keyword: Lawful.

Not only is this player using alignments incorrectly, they're being inconsiderate to the rest of the players. Maybe character motive isn't your biggest problem?

Quote from: Malphaeus;624906I can honestly say that as the weeks have gone by it has gotten harder and harder to justify the group traveling and working together.

So Blackhand isn't the only one...

Quote from: Captain Video;624961However i must say the suspention of disbelief decreased everytime we have a new party member show up, to sign up for a 25% percent chance of death in a dungeon of horrors. The current characters dont have a personal stake in the adventure. And i feel my DMs frustration it isnt really a roleplaying game unless we actually try to make decisions based on what our characters would actually do.

...and neither is Malphaeus.

Quote from: Captain Video;6249611. No evil characters, i mean we are fighting an evil temple cult, not recruting for it.

What an excellent point.

Quote from: Captain Video;624961We have had some new players lately and i dont know if they UNDERSTAND (or care about)completely the adventuring group dynamic.

Again, perhaps verisimilitude is not your primary problem here.

It strikes me that if you are going to run a meatgrinder (or things take a turn for the meatgrindery) – well, I have no problem with that, but, you need to concoct a unified origin or two for the meat. "The King sends more brave men to fight," at its dumbest... but something like that.

If some of the meat survives long enough for the players to get attached to it, then they can concoct more involved origin stories & quirks. Sorta like a war movie that way.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;624987Keyword: Lawful.

Not only is this player using alignments incorrectly, they're being inconsiderate to the rest of the players. Maybe character motive isn't your biggest problem?

Actually, it still fits within the framework of Lawful Evil. He was being evil by keeping all the money to himself and not telling anyone about it. He was the one in charge of divvying up the treasure and most of the time he would divvy out some loot (Keyword: some). Sometimes not. I'm sure his "share" of the loot we did collect was much larger than our own.

As long as he wasn't caught, he wasn't breaking the law. Just bending the rules.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625004Actually, it still fits within the framework of Lawful Evil. He was being evil by keeping all the money to himself and not telling anyone about it. He was the one in charge of divvying up the treasure and most of the time he would divvy out some loot (Keyword: some). Sometimes not. I'm sure his "share" of the loot we did collect was much larger than our own.

As long as he wasn't caught, he wasn't breaking the law. Just bending the rules.

Was there some sort of agreement made before the party gave Mr. Lawful Evil the loot to divide?  I'm assuming there must be, and if he was following that to the letter I could understand. But otherwise this sort of justification can be used for anything a Lawful Evil character does.

This is why I hate alignments. Lawful Evil doesn't say anything about whether a character is Just, Honorable, Selfish, Hateful, a Sadist, etc. And I usually only see alignment brought up when a player needs to defend their actions by saying "I'm just playing my character" or "It's what my character would do".

Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

However, in this case you have two things working against each other here, BH.  The deadliness of the dungeon is conflicting with the "random guys showing up who are motivated to stick together and uncover the secret if there is one."

It'a a Catch-22.  People don't really know there's some existential threat looming underneath the Temple, so the guys who would be motivated most to go there, are the least likely to randomly show up.  At some point, the 19th Ranger sent from the Gnarley Forest is gonna start popping up red flags somewhere.

You could always try the best motivator that's ever existed in AD&D, the high-level L/N wizard.  He knows Demons, Devils, Daemons, Drow, etc whatever are always gonna be trying to take everything over, he knows the Good guys are eventually going to mobilize and engage, so what he needs to do is cover the margins.  Find out where the "Next Big Evil Thing" is happening and uncover it.

Why does he care?  He needs the world to stay the way it is, so he can get back to what he does best, learning magic, expanding his power, working towards godhood, all that high-level wizard stuff.  

So eventually, intelligence filters through his web of contacts, informants, etc that there seems to be a whole lot of people mucking about in the old Temple area...and not coming back, but there currently doesn't seem to be any movement on the part of the Powers That Be.

This is exactly the kind of thing he sticks players' noses in.  So, he can use the carrot: riches, equipment, clones, whatever, or he can use the stick: geases, assassins, Magic Jar, whatever.

Never underestimate the power of the Clone.  The players keep their character, they still pay the penalty of losing everything they had, they have a built in personal motivator - Revenge, and they don't need to be convinced that there is something actually going on there, because they know it already killed them once.

True, this is a nuclear option that alters the overall campaign fundamentally, but nothing can organize a party of Neutral Fucks better then an even more powerful and motivated Neutral Fuck.