One of my players' Paladins split off from the party because the player determined the party was too Evil for the Paladin to get along with them anymore.
So far, so good.
The problem is where he split off. In a supremely inhospitable jungle environment that was basically magic Vietnam, and was sorely testing the party's strength combined.
I didn't bother checking what happened to him since the party had left for a while, but now the player is wondering if he can bring that character back. The thing is I feel like there's a 80% chance that this Paladin would have never made it out alive, but it feels cheap to just say he died offscreen. Would it make more sense to just handwave it and say he's available to use again? Otherwise, I was going to sit down and plot out his survival path, rolling for navigation and seeing how many days it would take VS how many rations he had, that sort of thing, to see if he'd actually have made it out.
This question can be broadened to how you deal with offscreened PCs in general. Do you still track their movements and behavior with the same rigor that you'd track a normal PC "onscreen," or just GM fiat it for whatever makes the most drama or is most convenient?
Do you have time to run a solo session for him? If so, just play it out.
(If he left the party, why is that PC still in the game? Is he rejoining the party? If not, why does his fate matter?)
Quote from: Dumarest;996035Do you have time to run a solo session for him? If so, just play it out.
(If he left the party, why is that PC still in the game? Is he rejoining the party? If not, why does his fate matter?)
The player's current PC (a cultist of Asmodeus) left the party because he was too evil. He has bad luck with making PCs that fit the group. First the Paladin didn't fit because the party was too evil, so he made an evil character, except then that PC was /too/ evil, so he had to leave too.
So now that at least the party has demonstrated some willingness to push back against fellow party member's doing evil things, he's thinking about having his Paladin return from exile -- if he's still alive.
But for that option to work, I have to determine the Paladin's current status. Obviously if the Paladin died in the wilderness, then there is no way the Paladin can come back.
Maybe running it as a side session could work though, or online...
If it's an option, I'd run a solo session in person or online so the player has the satisfaction of knowing whatever happened to his paladin was fair and the result of his own choices rather than just "GM said so."
Another option that might make an interesting change of play would be to devise some "NPC's" of slightly lower level than the paladin. These would be drawn up in advance by the GM, and handed out to the players other than the paladin and of an alignment suitable to him. Scene one would be to have the paladin rescue these folks from some unpleasant fate, and then play out the "escape from jungle" as a little baby campaign within the campaign. The paladin either wins through or he doesn't but either way the outcome is known. To motivate the other players you might arrange to give their regular characters some small reward for good role play on the part of the player with the temporary character.
There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have multiple characters for one player, especially if the paths don't cross.
Run the adventure for the Paladin's player, and what happens, happens.
"One Band Of Brothers Tied At The Hip" needs to die anyway. Yeah, it's more work with multiple parties, but for 2x work you get 10^x fun.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996074Run the adventure for the Paladin's player, and what happens, happens.
"One Band Of Brothers Tied At The Hip" needs to die anyway. Yeah, it's more work with multiple parties, but for 2x work you get 10^x fun.
If you were gamemastering it would you handle it as a solo for just the paladin and paladin's player or would you open it up to the group, and would you tie it to something that might influence the bigger game if there was some chance that the paladin might come back?
I'd start with the Paladin, since he separated himself from the others.
Then I'd see what happened. I would absolutely not predetermine what would happen; the point of playing the game is to see what happens.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996074Run the adventure for the Paladin's player, and what happens, happens.
"One Band Of Brothers Tied At The Hip" needs to die anyway. Yeah, it's more work with multiple parties, but for 2x work you get 10^x fun.
It was barely a thing even into the 90s so you can stop complaining about something that barely happens and if it does. Whats it to you? Why are you bitching about how other people at other tables play? Take your own advice.
This ends todays "Be mean to Gronan because hes being a twat against his own advice" infomercial.
To the OP.
You can just abstract it and tell the player to roll percentile dice. 01-10 and they lived and found their way back. On a 11-20 the group finds their corpse and can loot it. Anything else and the paladin bought it and no one will ever know. And thats a lesson not to make contrary characters or hie off on your own in the middle of no-where. Ornery and unruely characters are fine. But ones essentially primed grenades waiting flip out and leave are not so fine.
In the 5e group I am currently in As I have noted before. Kefra's druid liked to challenge my warlock's leadership now and then and we've had some fun arguments over how to do this or that and why just offing the prisoners, while the easiest option, is not the best option. Jan's halfling was one of those impatient types and would skip off in the middle of planning and promptly find the nearest wandering monster. Her half-orc replacement character is fairly easy going in contrast. The other two groups in this multi-group campaign have had some split ups and we picked up a PC from group A. An elven fighter.
And the 3e group I was in was really fractious. Sometimes not in a good way either. But I enjoyed the mayhem. Bemusingly it was my sorcerer and Sammas' paladin that were the ones most oft to split off and get into some absurd trouble simply from just following a lead we thought the others were too cautious to follow up on.
Your player doesn't want to make a 3rd character? I mean the if the Palladian had to leave before its not going to be a great fit now.
Also 2 characters in a row that are a bad fit for the party. Is he improving? I'm not there, but is it the characters or the player that is the bad fit. Since they are trying to find a dude thats a good fit they aren't a griefer. So you can work with him.
Good luck.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996033This question can be broadened to how you deal with offscreened PCs in general. Do you still track their movements and behavior with the same rigor that you'd track a normal PC "onscreen," or just GM fiat it for whatever makes the most drama or is most convenient?
Last time I dealt with it, a player dropped out of a Dark Sun game due to college. Sensing that there was a possibility the player would return, I on-the-spotted a reason:
The elemental spirits have called the character away. They are reasonably safe, but unavailable. Everyone knew it was an offscreen excuse, and it gave a bit of an adventure hook for if/when the player would return.
I feel like this is one of those situations where gameplay is more important than "realism". (In the moment, I'm sure I could retroactively explain it.)
Quote from: Omega;996194This ends todays "Be a twat" infomercial.
Fixed yer typo.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996269Fixed yer typo.
Looks more like you broke it.
Now get off my lawn.
So, setting aside the flinging of virtual monkey poo at each other for the moment, where have you seen players working in separate groups?
Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign. People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more. If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.
In fact, that's what the OP is all about. In Ye Olde Dayse (tm) (c) (pat pend) (reg u.s. pat off) the answer was "so now you have another player group."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996275So, setting aside the flinging of virtual monkey poo at each other for the moment, where have you seen players working in separate groups?
Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign. People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more. If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.
In fact, that's what the OP is all about. In Ye Olde Dayse (tm) (c) (pat pend) (reg u.s. pat off) the answer was "so now you have another player group."
Who wants to run X many games or has time for that though.
That and the whole point of playing with friends is playing with friends. Not playing alone.
If you've already made up your mind, then why are you asking us?
I don't think it's a bad idea for a special circumstance like this one.
I just meant, as a general way of doing things, it seems like it would promote taking a group of friends playing together and then just splinter them up into separate groups.
Is that fun? It seems like you either play separately, in which case you lose the social aspect, or you still play together but everyone spends 90% of the game watching other people play separate 1-player games essentially.
I've seen people "check out" and get bored, start looking at their phones, etc., once they basically have to spectate for too long.
Or was it different in your experience?
It was very different. We all ran multiple groups of multiple players, and their composition varied from time to time.
Yes it's more work, but it makes for a far more lively, dynamic world.
You mean different GMs, all in the same setting? Or one GM, multiple groups?
I was thinking of doing a sandbox hexcrawl where it was basically different groups in one game that I'd GM, but it would still be "party joined at the hip" stuff except for when the Rogue has to scout or something.
Also after the advice from this thread I started doing a 1 on 1 with the Paladin player. Looks like he got KO'd and taken hostage so far.
It would be same setting, likely same DM, multiple groups. People can play more than one character, just not at the same time.
The "West Marches" style of play which you might have heard about is an effort to recreate that dynamic.
I think a lot of players today are not aware they could act independently and a lot of DM's just don't have the chops to run more than one group and/or actively dissuade players from ever getting the idea in the first place. Some people don't want to play alone, even temporarily. Add in the usual tiresome blather about time and scheduling impossibilities and so it's rare to see. Despite these failures of imagination, it does still happen though.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996336I just meant, as a general way of doing things
In the general sense:
Existing players get first dibs on recurring game sessions. So in this example, if one player split off their paladin and wanted to know what happened next then I'd also run a solo session to see if paly made it out alive.
The player would now have a free-floating character in the campaign world. If he wanted to continue playing with the group, then a new character(s) as you've described.
If that player wanted to continue playing the paladin character - solo or otherwise - then we'd have to see if both of us had time to support additional game sessions. The player might recruit new players, or the other players might want to have a 2nd group adventuring parallel to their primary group. Or the paladin player might just want to adventure solo.
It all comes down to how much time you as DM have to give. But I'm personally fine with sporadic play sessions for alternate PCs.
This sounds like New Character Time.
I agree with Omega's idea about the abstraction if you want to have the PC rejoin.
Save vs. Death. If you save, great, you make it back to the group. If not, you're dead. Maybe the PCs can find your corpse, maybe your loot shows up in a future NPCs' hands.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996074Run the adventure for the Paladin's player, and what happens, happens.
"One Band Of Brothers Tied At The Hip" needs to die anyway. Yeah, it's more work with multiple parties, but for 2x work you get 10^x fun.
I disagree.
Today, for whatever reason, gamers have limited RPG time and running a solo or dividing up group time to appease a special snowflake isn't practical for the majority of gaming groups.
It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.
They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.
Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.
This sort of thing happens to my group all the time. The latest example about a month ago, I had two characters flee the group and dungeon because the rest were charmed by 1 faction in the dungeon and sent against a different faction. The 2 characters fled to try to get some help to un-charm their companions somehow, while the rest of the group was trying to carry out their mission. So I told the rest of the group to roll up new characters and I have now been DMing two different groups that will eventually ...maybe...come back together....and its been AWESOME! So I would do a solo adventure with the guy, or tell the group there is going to be a one off night where they can join with new characters or take a break. Otherwise, if you just roll to see if they survive or not...and if they fail and are pronounced dead...why would any of them spend any amount of time on their future characters?
Quote from: Spinachcat;996352It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.
They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.
Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.
That's exactly what happens in mine. Even when they ARE all together, if say combat is very long and there is a long time between turns, you'll have people basically stop paying attention until it is their turn. I mean, I can't blame them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;996352It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.
They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.
Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.
Yes, it's difficult. But once you get it going the excitement and fun should be enough to outweigh the distraction.
The day I'm not more interesting than a TV show or a tablet game, I quit this fucking hobby for good.
Along the same lines something similar to this thread happened a few years back with my group.
We couldn't agree as a group so we split up. The DM handled it by rolling up NPCs for each "faction" as it were. One week we'd focused on one faction of the PCs while the players of the other characters played the NPCs. The following week we'd switch. It actually all worked out quite well.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996275Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign. People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more. If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.
I just mentioned two examples previously.
And before 5e I was in a big 8+ player AD&D group and after introductions everyone promptly split up into smaller groups or off on their own. Two got killed and had to bring in new characters. Eventually we all reconvened except for a pair of thieves who decided to head out early to grab the reward for themselves and promptly got eaten and were rolling up new characters. The bard later split off from the group and got et. and from there the group dwindled as they got to the site, squabbled and
again split up into smaller groups. And met various unfortunate ends.
Same with the Gamma World campaign I ran and the Star Frontiers one and the Spelljammer one and so on.
Fractious disorganized groups has been the norm for me since just about the start. Id love to see one of these mythical joined at the hip friends for life groups.
Quote from: Omega;996433I just mentioned two examples previously.
And before 5e I was in a big 8+ player AD&D group and after introductions everyone promptly split up into smaller groups or off on their own. Two got killed and had to bring in new characters. Eventually we all reconvened except for a pair of thieves who decided to head out early to grab the reward for themselves and promptly got eaten and were rolling up new characters. The bard later split off from the group and got et. and from there the group dwindled as they got to the site, squabbled and again split up into smaller groups. And met various unfortunate ends.
Same with the Gamma World campaign I ran and the Star Frontiers one and the Spelljammer one and so on.
Fractious disorganized groups has been the norm for me since just about the start. Id love to see one of these mythical joined at the hip friends for life groups.
Heh, sounds similar to my groups. We are ALWAYS splitting up. We currently have 5 different groups in one campaign because of some party members splitting up, surviving, hooking up with new party members, and going after new goals or agendas. We stick with one group, get them pass an adventure or good stopping point, then we switch to one of the others. Makes the world feel more alive. About once a year or three, some run back into each other and there may be some pvp, but its usually a long buildup with a good RP story that goes with it.
Only thing, I don't know if I would be too interested in a 'joined at the hip friends for life group'...that sounds incredibly boring. Are all of them the same alignment or something?
That's rough Omega. I've tried to play in groups like that, but it usually devolves into PvP very quickly. I think its more of a player issue than a character one. Like there's no commitment from the get go to play as as a party, starting with chargen.
But be assured there is a happy medium to be found that allows for cohesive, collaborative group play and character independent actions within the same campaign.
That's rough Omega. I've tried to play in groups like that, but it usually devolves into PvP very quickly. I think its more of a player issue than a character one. Like there's no commitment from the get go to play as as a party, starting with chargen.
But be assured there is a happy medium to be found that allows for cohesive, collaborative group play and character independent actions within the same campaign.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996367Yes, it's difficult. But once you get it going the excitement and fun should be enough to outweigh the distraction.
The day I'm not more interesting than a TV show or a tablet game, I quit this fucking hobby for good.
I'd love to have a play environment where multiple groups pursuing their own agendas with people moving between groups or forming new groups really happened. Unfortunately these days I barely get one 2-3 hour game session a week...
Well, actually, play by post is a place where it really could happen, in in fact, in the big play by post campaign I was in for close to 10 years (currently on hiatus), we did actually split off. When the campaign got put on pause, there were 4 different groups, one formed with two high level PCs who had stepped out of the action for awhile and started in town adventuring together, another that was formed when one player didn't fit into the style of the high level group, and I'm not quite sure of the circumstances of the 4th group's formation. The GM also did some running on other boards though I'm not sure if they were technically in the same campaign even if they used the same setting. I am running two Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaigns on two different boards, but would consider them in the same campaign. My Wine Dark Rift Classic Traveller game has three active PbP groups on three different boards, plus an idle Roll20/Hangouts group, plus a pick up Roll20/Hangouts game that runs when the GM for my Tuesday night game isn't available. In theory all groups could interact though they are all on different timelines so it might be challenging.
As to the OP question, as many have suggested, if you can wing it, a catch up game (solo or with other players picking up 2nd PCs to play with the Paladin) would be the best way to handle it. Otherwise, come to some agreement on how to abstract it. If you want the Paladin back in the game, make sure it's possible. The suggestion of a random roll that gives him a 10% chance of survival I think is sort of insulting - either make it reasonable for the PC to come back, or if you really don't want the PC come back say so, don't use dice to "hide" your desires... That doesn't mean having him come back has to be a cake walk, there should be chance of failure, and if he plays it out, there should be chance of wild success. And if other players roll up PCs to play with the Paladin, who knows, everyone might decide the Paladin centered game is more fun...
Frank
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996033One of my players' Paladins split off from the party because the player determined the party was too Evil for the Paladin to get along with them anymore.
So far, so good.
The problem is where he split off. In a supremely inhospitable jungle environment that was basically magic Vietnam, and was sorely testing the party's strength combined.
Seems like a natural consequence of party failure in planning and compatibility. Maybe they'll learn something, especially if you don't handwave the situation away.
QuoteI didn't bother checking what happened to him since the party had left for a while, but now the player is wondering if he can bring that character back.
Is the player wondering that because of OOC concern for the rest of the party, or IC concern of the paladin? I would try to avoid having the paladin come rescue the people he deemed evil without IC reasoning from the paladin's perspective... of course, that may come naturally if you start to play out the paladin's situation.
QuoteThe thing is I feel like there's a 80% chance that this Paladin would have never made it out alive, but it feels cheap to just say he died offscreen.
Yes that seems cheap to me, especially if the player still wants to play the paladin. But it is of course up to the GM especially if the player had been saying they were done with that character and several days of action for the others have been resolved. I would think that even if the GM isn't willing to play out what happens to the paladin in detail, it would be more interesting and not much harder to assess general odds and roll dice to decide what his fate was and where he went. And I wouldn't tell the players that result until their characters were able to witness it somehow.
QuoteWould it make more sense to just handwave it and say he's available to use again?
I'd say that makes less sense and undermines the situation and consequences of choices. It makes the game about artificially having PCs win and having that trump the situation and natural consequences of their choices. It would also set them up to have more OOC expectations of nannying and complaints if in future you don't let them do similar things again.
QuoteOtherwise, I was going to sit down and plot out his survival path, rolling for navigation and seeing how many days it would take VS how many rations he had, that sort of thing, to see if he'd actually have made it out.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996037...Maybe running it as a side session could work though, or online...
Quote from: Dumarest;996038If it's an option, I'd run a solo session in person or online so the player has the satisfaction of knowing whatever happened to his paladin was fair and the result of his own choices rather than just "GM said so."
This is what I would do & recommend.
QuoteThis question can be broadened to how you deal with offscreened PCs in general. Do you still track their movements and behavior with the same rigor that you'd track a normal PC "onscreen," or just GM fiat it for whatever makes the most drama or is most convenient?
I track PCs and important NPCs (including nearby groups of interest, monsters, etc) in this way, but not in exactly the same degree of rigor. If I catch myself making decisions for or about offscreen characters for reasons of drama or convenience, then a warning alarm sounds and I question if I want to play drama/convenience or the situation, and usually rule for things that make sense, because experience with both routes has shown me that usually I am far happier having things make sense than having convenience or drama rule the world.
Quote from: Omega;996194It was barely a thing even into the 90s so you can stop complaining about something that barely happens ...
I notice it often enough in online discussions. This thread is more or less an example, too.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996275Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign. People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more. If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.
Happens in campaigns that I and some other GURPS GMs run quite a lot. A fair part of the time (sometimes the majority) is spent either with one player at a time as their PC does stuff away from other PCs (or often when the whole group splits and all do different things in different places), or with other players playing other characters near the PC, whether companions or adversaries or just other people on the same boat or in the same caravan or council chamber. I think it helps when the game system doesn't have fundamental divides between PCs and NPCs. (Often some of the best fun and roleplaying happens when people aren't playing their PCs, but some incidental characters.)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996336I don't think it's a bad idea for a special circumstance like this one.
I just meant, as a general way of doing things, it seems like it would promote taking a group of friends playing together and then just splinter them up into separate groups.
Is that fun? It seems like you either play separately, in which case you lose the social aspect, or you still play together but everyone spends 90% of the game watching other people play separate 1-player games essentially.
I've seen people "check out" and get bored, start looking at their phones, etc., once they basically have to spectate for too long.
Or was it different in your experience?
Is it fun? It is for me. Often more fun than group sessions, and certainly more fun for me that being forced to pal around together always because of conventions, GM inflexibility, or players who can't find anything to do with themselves.
There are various ways to do this, and the worst is having a group of people watch someone else play. In fact, sometimes they aren't even allowed to see or talk about what happened until the characters get reunited.
1. Play separate sessions. Play by email and/or phone can help make this practical.
2. Run splinter sessions when other players do things like go on a food run or whatever.
3. Have other players play other characters who are there (allied and/or adversary or incidental) when their PCs aren't present.
4. Rotate which player is being tracked, spending only so much time before switching to another player.
5. Have other games or pursuits that the other players can do when they're not playing with the GM who is running action for others.
6. Have multiple GMs who can run the same game for different player groups at once. Not usually a luxury I have, but I have done it and it works (with another GM who thinks like I do and has the time etc, which is why it's been rare for me). Does have the issue though of GMs having to debrief each other and stay on the same page, but was fun/interesting.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996361That's exactly what happens in mine. Even when they ARE all together, if say combat is very long and there is a long time between turns, you'll have people basically stop paying attention until it is their turn. I mean, I can't blame them.
Sure you can. How would they react if they went into a long explanation of their actions, and at the end you as the GM replied, huh? sorry I was checking my texts, could you repeat that?
Maybe you should try that. Any time the players talk to anyone but you for more than 30 seconds, start a game of Angry birds and make them wait.
It is extremely rude.
In the first place, this sounds like there's a problem with the player. Whether it's willful or unintentional, it seems like your player is having trouble fitting with the group's general style.
As for the question of the PC who was off-scene, that's a tricky one. Whatever you do, you have to keep in mind that you're establishing precedent. As long as you're fair, though, in the sense that if this happens again with this group you handle it in the same sort of way, you can probably go any way.
Sounds like there's a character compatibility issue here. The first thing is, what happens when said Paladin goes back to the group and they start back their evil ways? Would he be better off with a character that actually fits within the group? Or will he bugger off yet again.
Personally, I'd never kill a character 'off screen' without the player's involvement (or consent, for the good of the story). Even if the environment is harsh, he could still survive and thus make the story way more dramatic (with a remarkable comeback against the odds, etc.).
As was suggested, you could play him through a solo adventure.
Just my two cents.
Well, as far as killing them offscreen if it makes sense goes (super dangerous environment), the idea is that if they're giving up the PC then for all intents and purposes the character might as well be dead. It's not like they're using them anymore.
I don't understand why people seem to have a problem with that, though I'm not against playing it out either. For me I'd feel a little guilty doing it, I guess. Even though I'd be entitled to do it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997373Well, as far as killing them offscreen if it makes sense goes (super dangerous environment), the idea is that if they're giving up the PC then for all intents and purposes the character might as well be dead. It's not like they're using them anymore.
This makes an assumption that the player who ran (and presumably created) the PC has no interest in the PCs fate after they decide they don't feel like running that PC. That's an assumption that I'm not especially comfortable with for two reasons.
First, as you have now seen, players sometimes change their mind and decide that they again want to run that PC they had set aside earlier. I'd be a little disgruntled if I said, "Hey MC I'd like to run my Paladin again" and you responded "Sorry he died when you weren't looking." So long as that player is still in the game or even somewhat likely to return to the game there is the chance that the player will want to play that character again. I have had players leave a campaign and then had to decide what to do with their character for the sake of continuity and running a sensible, living world. In that case killing the character is pretty low on my list of fiat outcomes.
Second, there is a readily available alternative (which several people have mentioned) to the GM killing a PC outside of play and outside of the player's control. To whit, run a side adventure (solo or otherwise) to find out what happens to the Paladin. Maybe he dies. Maybe he doesn't. But at least that way the player was able to make choices that might influence the outcome.
I agree with what Bren just wrote.
Even if a player was totally uninterested in running an abandoned PC, it still seems far more interesting and fun to me to figure out what actually happens to that character than to use DM fiat to simply say they're dead. Tracking PCs and NPCs that leave parties and having them become dynamic independent elements is one of the elements of a dynamic campaign that I find most fun and interesting.
Quote from: Skarg;997459I agree with what Bren just wrote.
:)
Skarg mentioned the possibility to turn the PC into an interesting NPC. I've done that a number of times with PCs whose players moved away.
There's a fourth reason I'd be reluctant to off-screen kill a PC. I've had some players who like to think about their characters outside of the game. If the character is still dead the possibilities are still open for that player's imagination. If I kill the character off-screen by GM fiat then in one sense I've terminated those possibilities.
And a fifth reason. The PC is not my creation, it's the player's. So I'm reluctant to kill the PC outside of play absent some compelling reason to do that.
Wow some remarkably bad GM advice in this thread.
????
To be clear: I was surprised to see anyone advocating off screen character death. Terrible idea even with a dice roll
To me though I have to wonder how you ended up with a Paladin in an apparently evil group. Such party make-up will inevitably lead to PvP or party breakdown unless the player is half-assing the Paladin Rping.
Quote from: Voros;997511To be clear: I was surprised to see anyone advocating off screen character death. Terrible idea even with a dice roll
I suppose it could be my confirmation bias, but I thought death off screen was by far the least popular resolution method suggested in this thread.
I didn't say it was the majority, I said I was surprised to see anyone advocate it.
Quote from: Voros;997682I didn't say it was the majority, I said I was surprised to see anyone advocate it.
Me too! It would be something that I'd never do... Unless the PC specifically wanted me to wack his character so he could start back with a new one (or something like that).
Quote from: Voros;997682I didn't say it was the majority, I said I was surprised to see anyone advocate it.
It's the internet. Someone is going to be in favor of anything. Literally anything. :D
Quote from: Bren;997713It's the internet. Someone is going to be in favor of anything. Literally anything. :D
And now there's porn about it.
I'd negotiate something with the player. The PC can be alive, but not without some kind of consequence. Something bad happened in the escape from the jungle which can provide further plothooks. Maybe the PC got bitten by a Were-jaguar and is now a Lycanthrope and needs to find a cure. Or the PC survived but lost his faith due to some terrible things he saw and is now a fighter. Or maybe they're just horribly scarred from a fight they barely got through. I'd let the player ultimately decide but it would have to be something serious enough that survival doesn't feel like a cop-out.
Never negotiate with player! Do you see refs on the sidelines asking the ballplayer whether he thinks it was a foul?
Quote from: Dumarest;997944Never negotiate with player! Do you see refs on the sidelines asking the ballplayer whether he thinks it was a foul?
Sometime back in the last century I recall playing pickup basketball and football and people did in fact ask other players if something was or was not a foul.
Quote from: Dumarest;997944Never negotiate with player! Do you see refs on the sidelines asking the ballplayer whether he thinks it was a foul?
But you need the player to buy-in to whatever you're doing. If you get their thoughts and they're OK with it, it gives you extra freedom to act.
Quote from: Bren;997946Sometime back in the last century I recall playing pickup basketball and football and people did in fact ask other players if something was or was not a foul.
People, not refs. Everyone knows refs aren't people.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997948But you need the player to buy-in to whatever you're doing. If you get their thoughts and they're OK with it, it gives you extra freedom to act.
It's cool if the player is okay with it, but the ref doesn't need their agreement is all I'm saying. Besides, the best solution is still what I wrote way back on page one.
Exactly. It's just basic people handling skills.
DM: Ok. I'll say you're PC survived but his face now is horribly scarred from being mauled by a Jaguar. Small children scream and run away when they see him coming.
Player: What? Fuck you!
Or
DM: DM: Ok. I'll say you're PC survived but the other character's went through hell and really your character shouldn't have survived. There's needs to be some consequence to show how tough it was. How do you feel about your character being horribly scarred after a fight with a Jaguar?
Player: Cool. That makes him more badass.
DM: There's be some penalties in social situations.
Player: That's fine. Hey, does that mean mean I'll get a bonus to intimidate people.
DM: Sure, seems logical.
What a strange analogy!
Exactly, the best way to screw over the PC is to get the player to agree to it. Or better yet come up with it.
Quote from: TJS;997985Exactly, the best way to screw over the PC is to get the player to agree to it. Or better yet come up with it.
Okay, that I will agree to. Well done. Truly, players are the best at screwing their PCs.
"I will not kill your character, I will sit here and laugh hysterically as your own stupidity kills your character."
Quote from: Voros;997511To be clear: I was surprised to see anyone advocating off screen character death. Terrible idea even with a dice roll
Uh... the Player NPCed their own character and effectivively killed their own character off by having a hissy fit and stomping off (well the character did) alone into a very dangerous location.
Then later comes back after doing this a
second time with a second character and asks if they can bring back the presumed DOA paladin.
The OP is asking if they should let the players actions have their logical conclusion, or should they as the DM allow for a chance to have survived against all odds - topped off by the players behavior?
To me killing off the character is about the least imaginative thing you could do with the situation. And was it a hissy fit or the player actually playing a Paladin honestly? We don't know the full story.
And regardless, let them play their character's 'certain' death.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;997995"I will not kill your character, I will sit here and laugh hysterically as your own stupidity kills your character."
Funny - I said almost that exact thing Monday night:
(As group debated/bickered about choices)
Friend (to the group): "He's smiling. He's going to kill us."
Me: "No, I'm not. I'm going to let you kill yourselves."
Friend: "That's pretty much what I expected."
He didn't throw a hissy fit. It's just that he was playing a Paladin, and the party had no problem cavorting around with all the blatantly Evil magic items they had found. So rather than force a showdown over it, the Paladin left.
The trouble is, the place the party was, was basically Mordor. So he was alone in there.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;998397He didn't throw a hissy fit. It's just that he was playing a Paladin, and the party had no problem cavorting around with all the blatantly Evil magic items they had found. So rather than force a showdown over it, the Paladin left.
The trouble is, the place the party was, was basically Mordor. So he was alone in there.
So the Paladin thought they were all there to throw the One Ring into Mt Doom, but the rest of the group were there on a combination shopping trip and job interview. :D
* Orson Welles slow clap *
Moral of the story is. "Dont have your PC depart the group and game in the middle of hostile territory. Wait till its someplace relatively safe."
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;998397He didn't throw a hissy fit. It's just that he was playing a Paladin, and the party had no problem cavorting around with all the blatantly Evil magic items they had found. So rather than force a showdown over it, the Paladin left.
The trouble is, the place the party was, was basically Mordor. So he was alone in there.
Right so it sounds to me like the player was RPing his character in a good way, I wouldn't punish him for that. Get him captured (I know lots of players hate it but better than dead), have him dying of thirst and hunger and rescued by some hermit or neutral creature, have the evil or some bizarre disease infect his flesh and mind, have him experience a mystical vision of his God, either real or a hallucination, or have him die in a glorious bloodbath that you play out. Something more than 'roll...okay you're dead.'
I ended up playing it out. Here's what happened:
Within the first Navigation roll, he got lost, and ended up at the Dragon's lair. He got captured by the Dragon, and given an ultimatum to work for the Dragon or die. He agrees to follow the Dragon's minions to take care of a hostile village the dragon says allegedly are aggressing against him.
When the Paladin gets there he sees its a Trail of Tears style extermination. He turns on the cultists and wipes them out, frees the refugees. But they're in a cursed magical forest that wants to kill them.
He spends the next 23 days wandering the wilderness, as starvation and encounters grind away at him (I did this abstractly as a day per roll), until he finally escaped and reached his church at Helm's Hold with 4 Ranks of Exhaustion thanks to no food, 10 hp left, and 3 out of 21 refugees still alive. So now the character is on standby for if the player ever wants to use him again.
Yea! And now there are 3 NPCs whose attitudes towards the Paladin fall somewhere on the scale from "All hail our heroic savior who led us through death, doom, and starvation to eventual safety" to "If only that meddling, self-righteous bastard had left us alone my wife and children might still be alive. Instead I had to watch them slowly starve to death for days until they were horribly killed by a spine shooting poison mushroom."
Spine shooting poison mushrooms now exist on my world.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998628Spine shooting poison mushrooms now exist on my world.
That reminds me of
The Jester at Scar .
Nice result! Sounds (to me) like a rather fun and interesting outcome that could lead to more fun & interesting stuff in future.
Meanwhile, I would also try not to tell the other players what the result was, so they can wonder what became of him until their PCs find out in-game. I've had some pretty interesting conjectures from players about what various old PCs and NPCs got up to after they left their company.
Quote from: Skarg;998788Nice result! Sounds (to me) like a rather fun and interesting outcome that could lead to more fun & interesting stuff in future.
Meanwhile, I would also try not to tell the other players what the result was, so they can wonder what became of him until their PCs find out in-game. I've had some pretty interesting conjectures from players about what various old PCs and NPCs got up to after they left their company.
Agreed.
And this is exactly what I mean by "one group joined at the hip;" for at least some of the posters here, "run the Paladin separately" was a shocking revelation, not the default way of doing things.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998628Spine shooting poison mushrooms now exist on my world.
This is just cruel. You are gonna get a kill with that, and then say it wasn't your idea, but once it was out there, you had no choice, sorry. :)
Sounds like it was handled well.
I have sometimes killed off retired PCs by die roll - they get sent on some deadly mission by another PC or an NPC they joined with; I give them a generous d% chance based off the 1e assassination table, they fail. One retired PC got sent to steal the shield of a demigod - I gave him 60% success, 25% fail but escape, 15% dead - rolled 87. Another rolled similarly high being sent to assasinate an Archmage, got disintegrated.
The great majority get to retire & live happily ever after, but sometimes there's logically a chance of death and I'm not going to avoid that just because the character was created by someone else. They can always play them in some other GM's campaign if they like. Nor am I going to roll it all out by myself.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998628Spine shooting poison mushrooms now exist on my world.
If they work out well, you owe me another beer. If not, caveat utilitor.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;998610I ended up playing it out. Here's what happened:
Within the first Navigation roll, he got lost, and ended up at the Dragon's lair. He got captured by the Dragon, and given an ultimatum to work for the Dragon or die. He agrees to follow the Dragon's minions to take care of a hostile village the dragon says allegedly are aggressing against him.
When the Paladin gets there he sees its a Trail of Tears style extermination. He turns on the cultists and wipes them out, frees the refugees. But they're in a cursed magical forest that wants to kill them.
He spends the next 23 days wandering the wilderness, as starvation and encounters grind away at him (I did this abstractly as a day per roll), until he finally escaped and reached his church at Helm's Hold with 4 Ranks of Exhaustion thanks to no food, 10 hp left, and 3 out of 21 refugees still alive. So now the character is on standby for if the player ever wants to use him again.
Sounds like a fun session. Congrats.