So - I have a player who died, and then rolled up a new character (new race, new class, etc.) and then played the new character with exactly the same way as the old character (same personality/same reaction style/etc.). I know not everyone knows how to "act" (as in acting/theatre/roleplay/improv) but... Their old character died (quite valiantly) and... I just feel like the old persona showed up in a new body without benefit of even a resurrection spell... and just assumed a different name and set of abilities... Have you encountered this? It's kind of ... odd.

It's actually quite common, players get invested in an idea for a character and it tends to get stuck on a loop. They may feel that they're playing something completely different, but they've invested a lot of thought into the character that died and when this new character enters the scene it's difficult for many people to separate the new character from the old flow of the game.

There's a couple thoughts that go into this, first and foremost: is it really a problem? Does the attitude and persona really detract from the game? Sure it's like slapping a new paint job on an old car and saying it's different/new, but is that really a problem? 

The other thought is: would your player be receptive to you addressing this observation and see it as a chance to try something different? Sometimes the player doesn't even realize that they get into a rut. I have a player like this, they play 3 different characters in 3 different campaigns, however there's really nothing that make them stand out from each other. We've talked about it and there have been minor changes here and there, but nothing drastic. 

In the end it's really not a bad thing, so long as everyone is still having fun, just go with it and realize that this player is predictable.

The player in question is using the game, I think, in a therapeutic way to do things he isn't allowed to do in real life. I have the impression that his job is dull, he isn't allowed to be spontaneous, and the game is the one chance where he gets to go wild in a way. He has a big personality - but I just wish he'd exercise a little more caution in game - as his actions often derail what the other players are trying to do (not to mention - make it incredibly hard for me to prep for a session as I know that within the first ten minutes everything I've worked on for a week is going to go right out the window). His characters ALL tend to have impulse-control issues. In fact, the group got so mad at him at one point that they turned on him and killed his character. He was sad - but then trotted out another identical character with a new name and different class. Oi.

Then I would talk to the player, it's possible to allow him his spontaneity without imperiling him and his comrades. Just sit down with him, get an idea what he's about in game, a friendly chat about character depth and player desires. I've had a number of kids come to my games using it as an emotional outlet, and if that's their release, I'm happy it's in a safe and friendly environment. 

As to derailing your game, that's fairly easy to deal with if you keep in mind his spontaneity and impulsiveness. It generally doesn't take too much to allow them to wander off track for a while, then introduce a problem or person to start herding them back in a more constructive course of action. Learn the player's triggers, use them to your advantage, and it becomes a win/win for both of you. At the same time, don't forget that there are consequences to every action, death not always the resolution, sometimes having them lose everything and have to start anew is more detrimental. 

I feel that this is just a communication issue, and once you and this player can get on the same page, I think it'll work out.

Hey - try playing a game of Paranoia, where you get 6 identical copies of your character right off the bat! Of course, you'll need them; Paranoia adventures are often rated by how many of your character clones are likely to die in the session :D 

This happens a lot, actually.

I have a player like this in my current campaign: all 3 of her characters to date that I've DM'd have had the exact same personality.

Some players - especially newer players - tend  to recycle a "wish fulfillment" personality over and over. 

Eventually, most of them get bored with that, and try something new and try and stretch their role playing skills to try something different.

And, if they don't - as long as everyone is having fun with the campaign, it may not be a problem.

----

As for players running right off the edge of what you planned, and derailing what you thought was going to happen - we have a term for that: A D&D session ;)

Every action movie star pretty much does that in movies they are in =)

if they are having fun playing that type of person then let them be

Did you guys miss the part where the Player portrays his character in such a way that the other players had their PCs kill his for being annoying?  There is no "Talk to the player" thing now.  The other players have taken that part out of the DMs hands.  If the player wants to rejoin the group, HE (the player) has to come to the group and say how he (the player) is going to change his behavior and that of his PCs to fit in with the group.   

I agree with most of the above. in general you can iron out the wrinkles and develop a dm-player relationship that is healthy and productive. there is a tough road ahead but perhaps you could....

guide the player toward a team goals and original character. 3 steps

1 give him an a known NPC to pilot for a session. for example the prince must be escorted to the sacred temple of lathander to be crowned. the prince is a: coward, womanizer, fool, risk taker. pick something for the player to portray

2.let the player come up with an NPC to be leveraged for one or two sessions. for example. the sailor captain that helps the players dispatch some corsairs etc.

3. let the player decide on a new character and feel free to suggest team goals as a value for this character.

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

Did you guys miss the part where the Player portrays his character in such a way that the other players had their PCs kill his for being annoying?  There is no "Talk to the player" thing now.  The other players have taken that part out of the DMs hands.  If the player wants to rejoin the group, HE (the player) has to come to the group and say how he (the player) is going to change his behavior and that of his PCs to fit in with the group.    

Quite frankly, if I was told I had to petition the group for permission to come back, I'd tell them to fold up their character sheets until they were all sharp pointy corners and shove them somewhere delicate. Hard. I'd expect this Player to do the same.

Nothing prompts someone to say "F%#$^ you!" to a gaming group like being ganged up on.

Table discipline and control is still a DM responsibility, the player still needs to be spoken to.

I do agree that the rest of the party needs to be spoken to about the PvP aspect as well - but, again, this needs to be handled by the DM.

Maybe there are D&D groups that work well through some sort of democratic or group rule - but I've seen very few try, and I've never seen one succeed. Lots of discussion and debate, yes; peoples' opinions and preferences need to be taken into consideration. But at some point someone needs to make a hard and fast ruling, and step up to manage situations. That's the DM.

That's as true for interpersonal issues & PvP issues as it is whether or not you can use that ability in that situation. Maybe this Player isn't a good fit for the group; I've had to remove Players before - but I own and manage those situations.

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

Did you guys miss the part where the Player portrays his character in such a way that the other players had their PCs kill his for being annoying?  There is no "Talk to the player" thing now.  The other players have taken that part out of the DMs hands.  If the player wants to rejoin the group, HE (the player) has to come to the group and say how he (the player) is going to change his behavior and that of his PCs to fit in with the group.   

 

Well, this creates a problem that is almost guaranteed to have players feeling confined in their options on how to play.

Consider: I have a character that has a problem trusting people, he's forced to join a group and needs to travel with them in order to escape this situation and go back to his solo lifestyle. He has done many things to make my fellow characters want to toss him into the nearest dragon's den. I just had a situation where I sacrificed myself and may now be dead. Does this mean before I come back with a new sheet I need to explain to the table that I will no longer play a character that is distrusting, prefers solitude, appears to act impulsively, and won't keep secrets? 

I have a different character who is brash, quite charismatic, loves to smash things in the face, and will put himself before anyone. He's saved the party in numerous circumstances but he's also been the one to escalate about half those situations. My fellow players have thrown him under the bus because of his actions on a number of occasions. They knew he was a detriment to the party at the time, so they found a way to get rid of him. If he dies, does that mean I have to explain that I won't play a young, brash, hero worshiping, selfless, character who wants to protect everyone?

In both of those situations I have a character who the characters wanted to kill, in all seriousness, not in jest. Both of those characters cover a vastly different collection of character traits. According to the solution you've offered, I'd have to apologize and not play to those traits again. It really does limit players to fitting inside a prescribed role and personality set. Those character flaws and party dynamic are helpful for making the game entertaining. Not every group is mature enough to handle them without resorting to violence.

My group has found ways to deal with my flamboyant personalities without killing them. It's because the DM has talked to the entire table, and me personally, about what's going on and made sure that we understood various expectations at the table. The DM is the one who laid out the use of PvP, the DM took escalated situations and would begin to resolve them within the game. The DM was the one who took the group aside and resolved what was perceived as player conflict. That is not to say that the players didn't give me any verbal down-dressing because of my acts, but it was all with the DM as the mediator, or the DM was informed of it after the conversation. 

Now, this might sound strange Vex, but I respect you.  I value reading your opinions on this forum.  I know I can more likely than not gain insight by carefully considering what you have to say.

I ask you to consider this:  Players of Role Playing Games are bombarded with conflicting messages all the time.  D&D is rife with them.  Posts will crucify DMs that limit Player choices on Race/Class/and optional as always Feats.  They will slam DMs for not allowing utmost agency to Players in creating Sandbox worlds/adventures.   And then there are the posts and videos than claim that the DM is just another player at the table.  No more powerful or responsible than any other.   Sure, they control the challenges and such, but they are not Gygaxian Overlords any longer.  Really, with all that going on, what is a DM to think?  What should I do? They ask.

As I said, the other Players took agency and removed the offending Party member.  Yes, they should have taken a different tack and *talked* to the Player instead of ganking the PC, but what is done is done.  Since the offending Player did not receive the feedback that his play style is what caused the PvP, then the cycle will likely repeat.  Now, is it the job of the DM to smooth over this?  In your post, you state that it is, since the DM is presenting the adventure.  However, I view the game table holistically.  This is a problem with *A* Player.  The other Players have every right to expect that if *this* Player wants to continue with them, he has to redirect.  There is no fundamental force holding him to the gaming table, only a oft violated social contract.

I actually saw this quite a few times last year in the PVMS D&D club.  One player was constantly getting on the nerves of the other players with his antics.  Just like in the OP, they killed his PCs...repeatedly.  I tried to intervene *repeatedly* (as Club organizer but not DM), but in the end the Player would revert to type and BOOM!  Eventually he got the hint and EXPLICIT infodumps that the causes of the group strife were his behavior in game and comments he would make OOC.  He then dropped out of the group: about 5 deaths in.

I'll get back to this in a little while.

Hawk

Um ... Thank you. That's a bit odd to me - I'm fully aware I'm probably more likely to spew errant nonsense than the next guy. It's an Internet forum; take what I say with a spoonful of salt.

I don't actually view the table as being a dictatorial domain of the DM.

There is a difference in my mind between being an executive, and being an autocrat.

An autocrat will take the tack "we're doing it this way because this is what I want, because I said so, and this is my table!" - that's just being a dick, in my opinion. These are the kinds of DMs who should be slammed for being "Gygaxian Overlords" ( cool phrase, btw ).

An executive will evaluate the situation, listen to all the opinions and leanings of the group, consider the implications of what will happen to the group dynamic, and the future direction of what the group is doing, and distill that all down, and make a call. This isn't wielding personal power, this is distilling the situation down and being the one to shoulder the responsibility of the decision. This is being the humanized face ( and sometimes the target ) for a compromise group position, with a bit of a spin since the executive is also evaluating probable future developments coming out of the decision, and factoring that into the choice in a way that individual group members may not be doing.

It is my personal opinion that DMs should be executives and not autocrats.

I don't know if this is a holistic approach or not. It takes all the various viewpoints as input, so I would think it at least has holistic aspects to it.

I find that with Humans - and not just in D&D - that endless group discussions take forever and are not particularly effective. Eventually someone has to make the decision, and take the responsibility for it. I would argue that this happens all of the time, it's just that if there isn't an appointed executive, someone will de facto assume the role ( through the odd social dance of hierarchy that humans first practice in public school, and never leave behind; I suspect it's bred into us by a million years of primate evolution ).

And I believe that having a humanized face of a group position is important. A problem player being confronted by a group - or forced to petition a group - will feel ganged up on.

Not to call out Singerspell - since I fell flat on my face this way a lot before I clued in - but part of the DM responsibility to judge the dynamic at the table, and to head problems off before they happen.

In this case, this player should probably have been talked to by the DM, and the group talked to separately, as soon as it became clear that there was an issue. But that's water under the bridge.

Despite the OP, the problem here isn't that the Player is playing the same character personality - as I said, that happens all the time in D&D - it's the personality that they're playing.

I think the best that can be done now is to have those discussions now DM-to-Player and DM-to-group ( being the humanized face of the group dynamic ), and for the DM to make a call as to whether the Player is a good fit with the group. Not have the Player publicly shamed before the group and have to have them come to the group hat-in-hand, not have the party repeatedly kill the player character repeatedly until they get the hint - that really sends the wrong message to the rest of the group - but have the DM manage the situation.

Not impose their will autocratically, just manage the situation.

I've had to do this myself within the last 6 months or so. I had a Player whose style wasn't bad - they were actually a decent role-player and gamer with some interesting ideas - just not a good fit for the rest of the group. He had a fixation on the dark, morbid, and gruesome - playing a covertly evil character, who actions really squicked out a number of the Players to the point where more than one of them was thinking of leaving the group. I wasn't a fan of his fixations, but I have a pretty thick hide; I could have continued to play with his style. But the group clearly could not. I had long discussions with the group, and tried to find a compromise position. I had long personal discussions with the Player, and tried to find a compromise position. Eventually I had to make a call and eased the Player out, and took the responsibility for making that call.

Quote from DMThac0 >>

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

Did you guys miss the part where the Player portrays his character in such a way that the other players had their PCs kill his for being annoying?  There is no "Talk to the player" thing now.  The other players have taken that part out of the DMs hands.  If the player wants to rejoin the group, HE (the player) has to come to the group and say how he (the player) is going to change his behavior and that of his PCs to fit in with the group.   

 

**SNIP** 

 

In both of those situations I have a character who the characters wanted to kill, in all seriousness, not in jest. Both of those characters cover a vastly different collection of character traits. According to the solution you've offered, I'd have to apologize and not play to those traits again. It really does limit players to fitting inside a prescribed role and personality set. Those character flaws and party dynamic are helpful for making the game entertaining. Not every group is mature enough to handle them without resorting to violence.

My group has found ways to deal with my flamboyant personalities without killing them. It's because the DM has talked to the entire table, and me personally, about what's going on and made sure that we understood various expectations at the table. The DM is the one who laid out the use of PvP, the DM took escalated situations and would begin to resolve them within the game. The DM was the one who took the group aside and resolved what was perceived as player conflict. That is not to say that the players didn't give me any verbal down-dressing because of my acts, but it was all with the DM as the mediator, or the DM was informed of it after the conversation. 

Sorry about snipping the quote.

I understand what you are saying.  I disagree with the premise.  the OP, I believe, is dealing with a classic Mad Slasher.  Boring or constraining workplace and wants to cut loose in games.  Totally reasonable.   The problem is that the other players do not like this.  They took agency, and decided to remove the offending PC.  Now, if the DM and Players had set out a no PvP rule ahead of time and then they still offed the PC, then the other players should get a talk asking about why they decided to do that and how they could have wrecked the cohesiveness of the game table.  It seems to me that the table just looked at the situation and eliminated the problem.   It wasn't a Player Character problem, it was a Player problem.  The fact that he just made another Mad Slasher/Murder Hobo type confirms this.

Given that situation, is it the job of the DM to smooth things over and reintegrate the table?   Not really.  It is incumbent on all Players to create characters that comply with the conceit of the game: a reason to be together and stick together.   If a Player fails in this, they just need to get the hints and drop in line or move on to greener pastures.

As we have been playing a horror campaign set in the Shadowfell, madness, and resulting PVP actions - can happen. The table just decided to really take advantage of that. What surprised me was that everyone joined in. As a DM - some of it made sense in game - but the sheer overall response/joining in of the table - that was a bit of a shocker. 

I design a game where the players are going to be on a mission which will eventually lead them into becoming the rulers of a continent after defeating a zealot overlord corrupted by elemental demons. I tell them that they're going to be playing in a dystopian world just recovering from a great cataclysm, magic has become volatile and racial tensions are at a heightened state. I ask that the players create whatever they want from the core materials, explain that I'm not a fan of murder-hobos and pvp is frowned upon but may happen if circumstances are well played out. I also explain that I'd like them to be serious, but I'm not going to punish them for silly antics or rabbit trails so long as it's not detracting from the game. 

I then get one player who decides to push the envelope, he has decided that rather than being the good hero and creating a utopia he instead desires to take the zealot's seat as his own. His actions and antics cause the party hardship. His lack of fore-sight causes the game to become more difficult on the party. His alignment is shifting more and more toward NE. He seems to delight in the misery and power he's gaining from being this fledgling overlord. I know that he's suffering from problems at home and work which make him feel like he's lost control of things. His desire to assert control in the game being a manifestation of that desire to regain control. Eventually he chooses to do something underhanded that the party does not agree with and they murder his character.

He then makes a new character, new class, but the goal is the same; he wants to gain power and control.

-I should, at this point, not do anything? The players have taken it into their hands and it's no longer my responsibility. 
-Do I tell the player to shape up or ship out? His character is not acceptable because it's not in the same box as the other players' characters. 
-Talk to the player about the choices that they've made? Players can be helped and guided both in and out of game.

I do not believe it's as simple as: you aren't playing within the purview of the other players you can't do that. I believe that the dynamic of a loose cannon can add to the story, however , everything in moderation.  I believe discussion is the key here, not an ultimatum.

In the campaign I am running - I made it very clear to players that Evil Alignment for player characters was not allowed.

Part of the fun is seeing the land corrupt them over time - they don't "know" that. It's like a telltale game - I keep throwing really difficult moral decisions at them.

But the party basically cannibalizing another PC was premature... They weren't that evil yet! 

Anyway. The player that got "eaten" by his fellow players left the game. So it's not an issue any more. I just found the entire thing to be odd.

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

Sorry about snipping the quote.

I understand what you are saying.  I disagree with the premise.  the OP, I believe, is dealing with a classic Mad Slasher.  Boring or constraining workplace and wants to cut loose in games.  Totally reasonable.   The problem is that the other players do not like this.  They took agency, and decided to remove the offending PC.  Now, if the DM and Players had set out a no PvP rule ahead of time and then they still offed the PC, then the other players should get a talk asking about why they decided to do that and how they could have wrecked the cohesiveness of the game table.  It seems to me that the table just looked at the situation and eliminated the problem.   It wasn't a Player Character problem, it was a Player problem.  The fact that he just made another Mad Slasher/Murder Hobo type confirms this.

Given that situation, is it the job of the DM to smooth things over and reintegrate the table?   Not really.  It is incumbent on all Players to create characters that comply with the conceit of the game: a reason to be together and stick together.   If a Player fails in this, they just need to get the hints and drop in line or move on to greener pastures.

Oh come on - you cannot make working assumptions, use those assumptions to confirm your conclusions, and thus defend your assumptions.That is semantically equivalent to saying you're right because you're assuming you're right. I mean you can make that kind of argument if you like, but I won't accept an argument that self-servingly flimsy.

Players have a responsibility to integrate with the party - to an extent. As Rights and Responsibilities are linked pairs, they have the Right to expect tolerance of their character and personal RPG choices - again, to an extent.

In this case both the Group and the Player overstepped what was a reasonable extent: The Player annoyed the Group past the point they were willing to tolerate. The Group ( using their Characters as proxy ) murdered the Player's character to express their personal annoyance.

If you are unwilling to accept that the DM is responsible for mediating the situation, and managing the table, this is what happens. This is an unchecked "holistic approach".

You can try to manage the situation fairly and justly for everyone involved, or you accept the risk of PvP murder and chaos.

You can deal with people and group dynamics as they really are, or you can attempt to deal with people they way you wish they were.

I think the results of the latter approach are writ large in this example.

Quote from Singerspell >>

 

Anyway. The player that got "eaten" by his fellow players left the game. So it's not an issue any more. I just found the entire thing to be odd.

I would disagree. Your remaining Players now know they can murder their way out of situation and force people out of the group.

You have a point. It's something to watch out for - and guard against - in the future.