I have a player who told me a little while ago he wanted to switch out his character to a cleric because he isnt enjoying the class or the character, we talked through other options and came to an agreement it was the best way. He came up with a story narrative that fit linking the cleric and the bard together and I worked with him to make it fit the story arc I had mapped out for the bard. In short the bards backstory involved him fathering a child with a queen so he left the city to protect her from political backlash. Now she has sent the only other person that knew, her cleric, to ask him to return because her husband is plotting against her and she fears for her children and only trusts the character to help her keep them safe (turns out she had twins).
We agreed that as the bard is currently in the middle of an underground temple fighting undead then once the party had left the temple and at a suitable narriative moment I would make the switch, introducing the new character and having the old leave, it would also provide a nice backdrop giving more flavour to the politics of my world and helping fill in some gaps in understanding if the party where there while it was all explained. The temple has taken a bit longer then thought to clear, partly because of having to cancel some sessions (football), partly due to some player absence and then just because they have taken longer to do things then I thought but they are still in the temple and, I imagine will be for 2 more sessions, meaning probably 3 more sessions to make the switch. I have kept the player informed
Today without warning he messaged me to tell me his character is either dying in the temple or as soon as he leaves he is swapping him for the new character, told me I am controlling him as a person and when I explained, again, that I have invested months of my time developing the story arc his current character would eventually be the center of, he said that I was more invested in the character then he was and he was really unhappy with that as what was the point in him playing if I am deciding his story, this is after previously telling me he was no good at the backstory but and giving me the agency to make that up.
He has now said I should jaegur the bard and let him know when I have made the switch and he will rejoin then. I had a similar thing with another player, earlier on, he was not enjoying his cleric, asked to be a ranger, but played on as the cleric happily until the right narriative moment and actually told me not to rush it on his account but make it as organic as possible.
So given the above I just want to sense check, my approach with this switch out is not unfair? I know he isn’t enjoying playing bard, I am not entirely sure why and when I ask him he gives very non committed answers, I am not asking him to wait months, or telling him no you can’t swap, I am just asking for his patience in waiting a few more sessions for it to happen organically.
I am very tempted if he does go through with his threat to leave simply to write out his character, leave the new one out and never tell him it is time to return. I know the game will continue as the other players are fully invested and loving what I have done with each of their characters stories.
I generally really don’t like the kick him out/kill him option, and in face I won’t be killing the bard as he opens up a load of potential in future as an NPC.
So a sense check please, am I being a bit over the top here, if I am I am happy to accept that, or would you feel much the same way.
At its base, if a player is not having fun playing a character then there isn't much you can do about that. It sounds like the player has had enough of the bard and doesn't want to play it anymore. It's unfortunate that this happened in the middle of a dungeon and he is not patient enough to wait it out, but we can't really *make* someone want to keep playing a character. If he dislikes playing the character so much he's willing to sit out sessions then you know his unhappiness is pretty strong.
I think I would learn from this lesson and not ever make this player's character a major part of a story again. It sounds like he didn't appreciate it, so it's not worth doing all of that work for him. And if he's going to switch characters in the middle of a campaign, then you can't rely on him to keep playing the guy who is important in the story at any rate.
Is there some way you can have the cleric have had some reason to be in the temple, maybe captured by some bad guys? Give him the chance to jump right in, and offer to take the bard over (until getting out of the temple) as an NPC? It's a pain for you but it would get the player into his new character right away and he wouldn't have to keep waiting. I agree it seems like this player is impatient but many players are like this, especially after making a new character -- they want to play it ASAP.
I guess the question is, do you like playing with this person otherwise? Were you enjoying playing with him before this all happened? And do you think if he gets to play the new character say in the next session, he would go back to being fun to play with? If so, I'd get the cleric into the temple somehow as a captive, and have the party free him, as mentioned above. If, however, the player has been giving you trouble all along, and this is just one more straw to break the camel's back, then I'd probably tell him he needs to find another group to play with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my experience, the moment that a player starts 'acting up,' it's over for them. Changing character class should not make a sufficient enough difference to make them want to play in the game or not. The game is fun because it involves playing with a group of like-minded, fun people. It's fun because you're having a laugh. It's a social game, and that should count for at least 50% of why they're playing. Changing the spells that they get to cast, or how they RP, shouldn't make such a difference that they'd sit out.
You can just go with what they suggest: they sit out and miss the rest of the dungeon, and either you or another player run the bard character. When it's appropriate, invite them to rejoin as a Cleric, but let them know that if they choose to sit out of future sessions on a similar basis, then you won't be able to cater to that behaviour again. The downside of doing this is that you lose a player.
If you have another player who'd prefer to join the game and wants to play, personally I'd kick the obstinate bard/cleric and invite the new player to the table instead. If someone is literally saying "I'm choosing not to play the game" then well... that's their choice made.
In our current campaign, 3 of the 4 are likely about to switch characters, due to being a little worn out on the current ones. We were told to tell the DM who was replacing us, why and how. It was put to us, as players, to come up with a reason to change character. It forces us to invest in the characters and actually have a stake in it, as well as immersing us INTO the storytelling. As a result, 2 of us have a linked storyline to introduce us, that ties in with the main arc of our grand adventure and the 3rd has a possible arc that has him part of the core group we aligned with upon starting the campaign.
To me, if someone wants to change characters, they should be proactive and try to help the transition to help it fit and make sense, as well as keeping them involved in the process. I wouldn't expect the DM to undertake something as stark as a character swap entirely on his or her own, solely for my benefit. I feel that's a little unfair to the rest of the group. In our case, even the character changes were heavily discussed by all before we rolled up some potential characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The party is already 8 players so we can afford to drop to 7 without needing to replace. He is the most distant friend of the group so losing him won’t disrupt the group either.
I think I am going to take your approach, if he really can’t be bothered to turn up and listen to the story for 2 sessions fine, I will run the swap over and then let him know so he can return but also let him know that this is is first and final strike. I have a real feeling that in 3 months time he will be telling me the cleric is boring as well but I might be mistaken.
At its base, if a player is not having fun playing a character then there isn't much you can do about that. It sounds like the player has had enough of the bard and doesn't want to play it anymore. It's unfortunate that this happened in the middle of a dungeon and he is not patient enough to wait it out, but we can't really *make* someone want to keep playing a character. If he dislikes playing the character so much he's willing to sit out sessions then you know his unhappiness is pretty strong.
I think I would learn from this lesson and not ever make this player's character a major part of a story again. It sounds like he didn't appreciate it, so it's not worth doing all of that work for him. And if he's going to switch characters in the middle of a campaign, then you can't rely on him to keep playing the guy who is important in the story at any rate.
Is there some way you can have the cleric have had some reason to be in the temple, maybe captured by some bad guys? Give him the chance to jump right in, and offer to take the bard over (until getting out of the temple) as an NPC? It's a pain for you but it would get the player into his new character right away and he wouldn't have to keep waiting. I agree it seems like this player is impatient but many players are like this, especially after making a new character -- they want to play it ASAP.
I guess the question is, do you like playing with this person otherwise? Were you enjoying playing with him before this all happened? And do you think if he gets to play the new character say in the next session, he would go back to being fun to play with? If so, I'd get the cleric into the temple somehow as a captive, and have the party free him, as mentioned above. If, however, the player has been giving you trouble all along, and this is just one more straw to break the camel's back, then I'd probably tell him he needs to find another group to play with.
He has his moments the confusing thing is that the bard was a really fun character he seemed to be having fun with in terms of RP, I worry the boring cleric he has created will lose its luster after a while.
I completely understand that if he isn’t having fun it is hard, but he has been roleplaying and being active right through the temple. I told him that they are right near the end, if the party are quick then 1 session, if they drag things out then 2, I won’t be making him part of the story for a good while, there are plenty of plot hooks for the other characters to drip feed and see what getS grabbed and run with next. I may well use the Bard NPC as a way to draw the party to that story thread in the future (saving the children from an under siege city while helping overcome the political machinations of the king). But that depends on how the campaign flows :).
It sounds like you got a little too invested in the Bard, rather than what the player wanted. Nothing really wrong with that and you say everyone was having fun. Perhaps all that's happened here is that they resent how their own story is being forced into yours. It grew and festered over time, and I see why they might want to switch. But.
Anyone who objected to waiting for a whole two sessions of the game would be told by me to not let the door hit them on their way out. Use the Bard as an NPC, Give them maybe one chance to play the Cleric. I wouldn't, but I'm not always going to be nice to someone being that impatient. The moment they start screwing with the story, I'd suggest showing them the door and helping them walk out though it. Just try in the future to let the player's drive the story and don't make grandiose plans for the future of it.
You've already stated in your OP that you know what to do and how to do it, but you seem too invested in the story that you've woven to allow it to change. I might point out that you don't need the original cast to tell the same story.
What would happen if you didn't want any PC to die, but math rocks decided that they would? Would plot armor have brought them right back to save the story, or would you be able to move on and adapt to how the cast changed mid-episode? If, for example, they were to make a sacrificial move mid-combat, that choice should be allowed to stand. Make sure they understand the consequences of their decision, and if they acknowledge the consequence and direct their decision to stand, don't hold back.
You're still faced with the same plot line dilemma if they were to just swap out a character mid-dungeon. I'll grant you that changing the world in the background is challenging and does take some work. It's not always necessary. You can always ask the player to chip in and fit the new character into the world, with your approval, of course. If they refuse, well you've said it yourself, you have 8 total and can drop to 7 without issue. The way I see it, the player needs to work within the constraints of your world. Should they choose not to, be polite, thank them for their time and say your farewells. Try to learn how to embrace these changes and make the most of them. They may serve you well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I can understand the desire to maintain verisimilitude and the narrative ya'll forged, but I'd recommend that you embrace the fact that this is a game and just handwave the character switch. You can create a reason after the dungeon is cleared and keep on trucking. Heck, your player may change their mind again and go back to the bard.
If this kind of thing keeps happening, then you may need to have a discussion about the game expectations again.
Why not kill the Bard off in the next session, and amend the dungeon so that the players find a cleric who is being held prisoner? Amend the backstory so that the cleric is from 100 years ago and got trapped inside a magical gem. It would be a fun an memorable way to introduce them.
Why not kill the Bard off in the next session, and amend the dungeon so that the players find a cleric who is being held prisoner? Amend the backstory so that the cleric is from 100 years ago and got trapped inside a magical gem. It would be a fun an memorable way to introduce them.
Have the cleric trapped in a magical gem, and have the bard touch it (inform the player that if he wants to change character, he needs to touch the gem, a little meta knowledge won't hurt them!)
When the bard touches the gem, he swaps places with the cleric. The gem falls to the ground and shatters. The cleric has been trapped for a hundred years in there, and get the player to come up with what the place was like.
Then, either some levels later or in a different campaign based in the future of the same world, you could have the bard return as a deranged BBEG, driven mad by being trapped in the gem. See how long it takes the players to realise the connection!
I can understand the desire to maintain verisimilitude and the narrative ya'll forged, but I'd recommend that you embrace the fact that this is a game and just handwave the character switch. You can create a reason after the dungeon is cleared and keep on trucking. Heck, your player may change their mind again and go back to the bard.
If this kind of thing keeps happening, then you may need to have a discussion about the game expectations again.
I too would drop the Bard out and put the Cleric in. Probably as prisoner of as Sanvael said, in a item of some sort.
Just do the switch quick like and move on with the game. If the player continues to give you hash, let him go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Why not kill the Bard off in the next session, and amend the dungeon so that the players find a cleric who is being held prisoner? Amend the backstory so that the cleric is from 100 years ago and got trapped inside a magical gem. It would be a fun an memorable way to introduce them.
Have the cleric trapped in a magical gem, and have the bard touch it (inform the player that if he wants to change character, he needs to touch the gem, a little meta knowledge won't hurt them!)
When the bard touches the gem, he swaps places with the cleric. The gem falls to the ground and shatters. The cleric has been trapped for a hundred years in there, and get the player to come up with what the place was like.
Then, either some levels later or in a different campaign based in the future of the same world, you could have the bard return as a deranged BBEG, driven mad by being trapped in the gem. See how long it takes the players to realise the connection!
That's a really neat way of getting rid of one and bringing in the other.
Alternatively, maybe the Bard breaks a mystical idol, releasing the spirit of a long-ago trapped cleric that possesses him? If he likes RP'ing the bard, maybe just switch their stats? There are lots of good ways you can get this over and done with quickly.
The player has come up with his clerics Backstory (advisor to the queen, coming to tell the bard he needs to go back to the queen) so i am not going to change that, in fact that was the first thing he came up when we first started talking about him changing character.
Like I say until yesterday he was absolutely on board with the slowish pace to the swap to the point where we talked about it last week. I don't want the Bard killed off, the potential for a plot hook there in future as an NPC is too great, as for being a prisoner again that would make no sense. This is a temple that has been hidden away for 1000 years and then about a week ago (game time) a cult uncovered it, did a thing and brought the dead dwarf inhabitants back as undead. The party have pretty much cleared it out, one more room and some information to discover and they are done. Then they will be returning back to the town (which this temple is under), at that point the cleric, who is already in the town looking for the bard, will make an appearance and the swap will happen. I will probably have that happen as they leave the temple rather then do it when I was, after a dinner held in their honour by the town mayor. With hindsight if the player had indicated he was not happy playing the bard a bit longer originally then I could have had the cleric find his way into the temple hunting for him (the town guard know the party are down there dealing with this problem) but the player had stated he was happy waiting and in game has been fully active and participating so given no indication he was not. A learning for me, but I won't be changing my story telling style as all the other players love what i am doing in regards to little plot hooks and hints to the parts of their backstory they know nothing about. What I think I need to help him understand is that when I present a thread he is absolutely ok to say, nope, not following that, I want to do this instead. My plot hooks are not railroads they are just little suggestions of things the players might like to do if they don't have better ideas themselves.
Ok a mutual friend in the game has just reached out, apparently he has been talking to her about it, won't get into specifics but she has explained he does this sometimes generally in life, has a sudden need to do a thing opposite to what he has been happy with, or expect everyone to change to suit his needs and doesn't so much ignore, but can't see anyone else's perspective, wont go into details but it is linked to his personality and who he is and I get it and fully understand, she is going to talk to him because she tends to be the person who talks him down in these cases and helps him stop, breathe and see things from others perspective. She is of the opinion that the rest of the party would work around a sudden switch but they would all prefer a more realistic slow approach I have detailed out. In her opinion it will make it easier to integrate the new character into the party if they have the time to do the swap properly and get to do the dialogue as to why Broch needs to leave. She also agreed killing Broch off is a bad idea because the players and characters love the character so the natural drive for all would be to try and get him resurrected as opposed to just leaving him and moving on.
So I am going to see if he appears at this evenings session or not, if he does I am going to have a quick one to one chat with him (everything has been by text so far, which is probably another lesson to learn on my side) and just reassure him the swap is def happening and I will pull it forward to make sure if not by the end of the session now, then as much as I can it will be the next session. Even if it is a very quick hello and the explanation happens at the start of session 3 at least he will know the character is on the board and live.
Have the cleric trapped in a magical gem, and have the bard touch it (inform the player that if he wants to change character, he needs to touch the gem, a little meta knowledge won't hurt them!) When the bard touches the gem, he swaps places with the cleric. The gem falls to the ground and shatters. The cleric has been trapped for a hundred years in there, and get the player to come up with what the place was like.
Love this. I recommend doing this or something like it. Gets the characters immediately and permanently swapped. The player should like it. (Make sure the other players know this was his choice so they don't think you would arbitrarily do this to them).
It was put to us, as players, to come up with a reason to change character. It forces us to invest in the characters and actually have a stake in it, as well as immersing us INTO the storytelling.
I agree with this as well.
One of my players had this idea to change his character in a pretty dramatic way. He was not happy with the RP he had done up to this point, and rather than just changing his RP to make himself happier, he wanted to come up with this dramatic change for his character to explain the RP change. He asked me to come up with some way of doing this change that was long-term (multiple sessions) but not permanent. (I'm going to be coy about the change because he might still want to do it and the other players may read this forum.)
Well, I could come up with some super-temporary ways to do the change that the cleric could reverse the next day with a Restoration or Remove Curse spell. And I could come up with some permanent ways to do the change. But I could not figure out, mechanically, how I would do it "long term" but not permanent. After a few weeks he became frustrated, why couldn't I "just do it" so he could get on with his RP. So I finally threw it to him: OK, *you* come up with a method of doing this and let me know what you come up with.
Several more weeks went by. When I asked him what he came up with -- he had nothing. By asking him to come up with it, I made him realize that, there is not really a good way to do what he was trying to do, mechanically, in D&D, and even narratively, it didn't make a lot of sense, what he was asking to have done. He finally abandoned this idea. Whether he's going to come back to it, I don't know. But I'm going to make HIM come up with it. You want to make this change to your character, YOU figure out how to make it work. Or at least help me do it. Don't just throw it to me and say "you do it, and do it now."
Same thing with changing characters. Your player wants to switch characters in the middle of a dungeon -- OK, ask HIM to figure out how to do it. At least, do that for next time.
For this time, do the gem thing. It's awesome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't want the Bard killed off, the potential for a plot hook there in future as an NPC is too great
Yeah, it sounds to me like you are too invested in this bard character. Let the plot hook go. It's OK to abandon them.
One of my players stopped coming after a couple of sessions. He has severe family/life issues. He said he was coming back "next session" every time at first. I planned a 4th level major adventure around his character's background. Then he never showed, and when I realized he wasn't going to, I had to slot the 6th level adventure into 4th level, which kind of messed with the story. Now that 4th level story has never happened. It would have been worthless to do his character's backstory with me running him as an NPC, so I just had to let it go.
The Bard player wants to switch characters and play a cleric. You need to accept this and let the bard go completely. Don't try to keep doing your "really cool story" about the bard once no one is playing the bard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't want the Bard killed off, the potential for a plot hook there in future as an NPC is too great
Yeah, it sounds to me like you are too invested in this bard character. Let the plot hook go. It's OK to abandon them.
One of my players stopped coming after a couple of sessions. He has severe family/life issues. He said he was coming back "next session" every time at first. I planned a 4th level major adventure around his character's background. Then he never showed, and when I realized he wasn't going to, I had to slot the 6th level adventure into 4th level, which kind of messed with the story. Now that 4th level story has never happened. It would have been worthless to do his character's backstory with me running him as an NPC, so I just had to let it go.
The Bard player wants to switch characters and play a cleric. You need to accept this and let the bard go completely. Don't try to keep doing your "really cool story" about the bard once no one is playing the bard.
The issue here is that the player himself has tied his cleric to the bard, I didn't come up with the cleric backstory the player did and made it intrinsically linked to the bard, I have reached out to him and asked if he wants to change that and he is insisting no, his cleric was the advisor to the queen the bard had an affair with has been sent to seek out the bard to tell him he needs to return to the queen, he then wants his bard to go off back to that city to one day become the king of the city, he wanted the king to be dead and his bard to become the king just automatically, which i am not willing to do in case he has a change of heart and decides to bring the Bard back himself and then says, oh I am a king now, great.
I disagree I am overly invested in the Bard I am happy if the party never follow that story thread at all, what I have tried to do is accomodate what the Player wanted and the story he came up with, while also then using that potential link as a way to further the story. The city state of Abolonia (where the bard comes from) is under threat from the Empire of Etresh and will at some point in the campaign either fall, or fight off the threat. The players may be involved in that or they may hear about it as a side bit of information far on the other side of the continent. The bard being part of that story would have been cool, the Cleric coming from that same city means the event at least if it happens will have meaning, but if it comes to nothing then so be it.
Anyway I have taken onboard many of the comments here, thank you, I probably need to adjust my thinking slightly, but think there is a learning for the player as well in terms of communication. Will let you know how it all pans out.
I see. It's the player who has too much invested in the Bard. So much so that they want to change characters and push the Bard's story past the level you would allow as a player character. In that case, sure, let the Bard become the King, and tell the player to enjoy their Cleric, because they never get to play the Bard again. Or offer to let them play the Bard they seem to love so much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a player who told me a little while ago he wanted to switch out his character to a cleric because he isnt enjoying the class or the character, we talked through other options and came to an agreement it was the best way. He came up with a story narrative that fit linking the cleric and the bard together and I worked with him to make it fit the story arc I had mapped out for the bard. In short the bards backstory involved him fathering a child with a queen so he left the city to protect her from political backlash. Now she has sent the only other person that knew, her cleric, to ask him to return because her husband is plotting against her and she fears for her children and only trusts the character to help her keep them safe (turns out she had twins).
We agreed that as the bard is currently in the middle of an underground temple fighting undead then once the party had left the temple and at a suitable narriative moment I would make the switch, introducing the new character and having the old leave, it would also provide a nice backdrop giving more flavour to the politics of my world and helping fill in some gaps in understanding if the party where there while it was all explained. The temple has taken a bit longer then thought to clear, partly because of having to cancel some sessions (football), partly due to some player absence and then just because they have taken longer to do things then I thought but they are still in the temple and, I imagine will be for 2 more sessions, meaning probably 3 more sessions to make the switch. I have kept the player informed
Today without warning he messaged me to tell me his character is either dying in the temple or as soon as he leaves he is swapping him for the new character, told me I am controlling him as a person and when I explained, again, that I have invested months of my time developing the story arc his current character would eventually be the center of, he said that I was more invested in the character then he was and he was really unhappy with that as what was the point in him playing if I am deciding his story, this is after previously telling me he was no good at the backstory but and giving me the agency to make that up.
He has now said I should jaegur the bard and let him know when I have made the switch and he will rejoin then. I had a similar thing with another player, earlier on, he was not enjoying his cleric, asked to be a ranger, but played on as the cleric happily until the right narriative moment and actually told me not to rush it on his account but make it as organic as possible.
So given the above I just want to sense check, my approach with this switch out is not unfair? I know he isn’t enjoying playing bard, I am not entirely sure why and when I ask him he gives very non committed answers, I am not asking him to wait months, or telling him no you can’t swap, I am just asking for his patience in waiting a few more sessions for it to happen organically.
I am very tempted if he does go through with his threat to leave simply to write out his character, leave the new one out and never tell him it is time to return. I know the game will continue as the other players are fully invested and loving what I have done with each of their characters stories.
I generally really don’t like the kick him out/kill him option, and in face I won’t be killing the bard as he opens up a load of potential in future as an NPC.
So a sense check please, am I being a bit over the top here, if I am I am happy to accept that, or would you feel much the same way.
At its base, if a player is not having fun playing a character then there isn't much you can do about that. It sounds like the player has had enough of the bard and doesn't want to play it anymore. It's unfortunate that this happened in the middle of a dungeon and he is not patient enough to wait it out, but we can't really *make* someone want to keep playing a character. If he dislikes playing the character so much he's willing to sit out sessions then you know his unhappiness is pretty strong.
I think I would learn from this lesson and not ever make this player's character a major part of a story again. It sounds like he didn't appreciate it, so it's not worth doing all of that work for him. And if he's going to switch characters in the middle of a campaign, then you can't rely on him to keep playing the guy who is important in the story at any rate.
Is there some way you can have the cleric have had some reason to be in the temple, maybe captured by some bad guys? Give him the chance to jump right in, and offer to take the bard over (until getting out of the temple) as an NPC? It's a pain for you but it would get the player into his new character right away and he wouldn't have to keep waiting. I agree it seems like this player is impatient but many players are like this, especially after making a new character -- they want to play it ASAP.
I guess the question is, do you like playing with this person otherwise? Were you enjoying playing with him before this all happened? And do you think if he gets to play the new character say in the next session, he would go back to being fun to play with? If so, I'd get the cleric into the temple somehow as a captive, and have the party free him, as mentioned above. If, however, the player has been giving you trouble all along, and this is just one more straw to break the camel's back, then I'd probably tell him he needs to find another group to play with.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my experience, the moment that a player starts 'acting up,' it's over for them. Changing character class should not make a sufficient enough difference to make them want to play in the game or not. The game is fun because it involves playing with a group of like-minded, fun people. It's fun because you're having a laugh. It's a social game, and that should count for at least 50% of why they're playing. Changing the spells that they get to cast, or how they RP, shouldn't make such a difference that they'd sit out.
You can just go with what they suggest: they sit out and miss the rest of the dungeon, and either you or another player run the bard character. When it's appropriate, invite them to rejoin as a Cleric, but let them know that if they choose to sit out of future sessions on a similar basis, then you won't be able to cater to that behaviour again. The downside of doing this is that you lose a player.
If you have another player who'd prefer to join the game and wants to play, personally I'd kick the obstinate bard/cleric and invite the new player to the table instead. If someone is literally saying "I'm choosing not to play the game" then well... that's their choice made.
In our current campaign, 3 of the 4 are likely about to switch characters, due to being a little worn out on the current ones. We were told to tell the DM who was replacing us, why and how. It was put to us, as players, to come up with a reason to change character. It forces us to invest in the characters and actually have a stake in it, as well as immersing us INTO the storytelling. As a result, 2 of us have a linked storyline to introduce us, that ties in with the main arc of our grand adventure and the 3rd has a possible arc that has him part of the core group we aligned with upon starting the campaign.
To me, if someone wants to change characters, they should be proactive and try to help the transition to help it fit and make sense, as well as keeping them involved in the process. I wouldn't expect the DM to undertake something as stark as a character swap entirely on his or her own, solely for my benefit. I feel that's a little unfair to the rest of the group. In our case, even the character changes were heavily discussed by all before we rolled up some potential characters.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The party is already 8 players so we can afford to drop to 7 without needing to replace. He is the most distant friend of the group so losing him won’t disrupt the group either.
I think I am going to take your approach, if he really can’t be bothered to turn up and listen to the story for 2 sessions fine, I will run the swap over and then let him know so he can return but also let him know that this is is first and final strike. I have a real feeling that in 3 months time he will be telling me the cleric is boring as well but I might be mistaken.
He has his moments the confusing thing is that the bard was a really fun character he seemed to be having fun with in terms of RP, I worry the boring cleric he has created will lose its luster after a while.
I completely understand that if he isn’t having fun it is hard, but he has been roleplaying and being active right through the temple. I told him that they are right near the end, if the party are quick then 1 session, if they drag things out then 2, I won’t be making him part of the story for a good while, there are plenty of plot hooks for the other characters to drip feed and see what getS grabbed and run with next. I may well use the Bard NPC as a way to draw the party to that story thread in the future (saving the children from an under siege city while helping overcome the political machinations of the king). But that depends on how the campaign flows :).
It sounds like you got a little too invested in the Bard, rather than what the player wanted. Nothing really wrong with that and you say everyone was having fun. Perhaps all that's happened here is that they resent how their own story is being forced into yours. It grew and festered over time, and I see why they might want to switch. But.
Anyone who objected to waiting for a whole two sessions of the game would be told by me to not let the door hit them on their way out. Use the Bard as an NPC, Give them maybe one chance to play the Cleric. I wouldn't, but I'm not always going to be nice to someone being that impatient. The moment they start screwing with the story, I'd suggest showing them the door and helping them walk out though it. Just try in the future to let the player's drive the story and don't make grandiose plans for the future of it.
<Insert clever signature here>
You've already stated in your OP that you know what to do and how to do it, but you seem too invested in the story that you've woven to allow it to change. I might point out that you don't need the original cast to tell the same story.
What would happen if you didn't want any PC to die, but math rocks decided that they would? Would plot armor have brought them right back to save the story, or would you be able to move on and adapt to how the cast changed mid-episode? If, for example, they were to make a sacrificial move mid-combat, that choice should be allowed to stand. Make sure they understand the consequences of their decision, and if they acknowledge the consequence and direct their decision to stand, don't hold back.
You're still faced with the same plot line dilemma if they were to just swap out a character mid-dungeon. I'll grant you that changing the world in the background is challenging and does take some work. It's not always necessary. You can always ask the player to chip in and fit the new character into the world, with your approval, of course. If they refuse, well you've said it yourself, you have 8 total and can drop to 7 without issue. The way I see it, the player needs to work within the constraints of your world. Should they choose not to, be polite, thank them for their time and say your farewells. Try to learn how to embrace these changes and make the most of them. They may serve you well.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I can understand the desire to maintain verisimilitude and the narrative ya'll forged, but I'd recommend that you embrace the fact that this is a game and just handwave the character switch. You can create a reason after the dungeon is cleared and keep on trucking. Heck, your player may change their mind again and go back to the bard.
If this kind of thing keeps happening, then you may need to have a discussion about the game expectations again.
Why not kill the Bard off in the next session, and amend the dungeon so that the players find a cleric who is being held prisoner? Amend the backstory so that the cleric is from 100 years ago and got trapped inside a magical gem. It would be a fun an memorable way to introduce them.
Have the cleric trapped in a magical gem, and have the bard touch it (inform the player that if he wants to change character, he needs to touch the gem, a little meta knowledge won't hurt them!)
When the bard touches the gem, he swaps places with the cleric. The gem falls to the ground and shatters. The cleric has been trapped for a hundred years in there, and get the player to come up with what the place was like.
Then, either some levels later or in a different campaign based in the future of the same world, you could have the bard return as a deranged BBEG, driven mad by being trapped in the gem. See how long it takes the players to realise the connection!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I too would drop the Bard out and put the Cleric in. Probably as prisoner of as Sanvael said, in a item of some sort.
Just do the switch quick like and move on with the game. If the player continues to give you hash, let him go.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That's a really neat way of getting rid of one and bringing in the other.
Alternatively, maybe the Bard breaks a mystical idol, releasing the spirit of a long-ago trapped cleric that possesses him? If he likes RP'ing the bard, maybe just switch their stats? There are lots of good ways you can get this over and done with quickly.
The player has come up with his clerics Backstory (advisor to the queen, coming to tell the bard he needs to go back to the queen) so i am not going to change that, in fact that was the first thing he came up when we first started talking about him changing character.
Like I say until yesterday he was absolutely on board with the slowish pace to the swap to the point where we talked about it last week. I don't want the Bard killed off, the potential for a plot hook there in future as an NPC is too great, as for being a prisoner again that would make no sense. This is a temple that has been hidden away for 1000 years and then about a week ago (game time) a cult uncovered it, did a thing and brought the dead dwarf inhabitants back as undead. The party have pretty much cleared it out, one more room and some information to discover and they are done. Then they will be returning back to the town (which this temple is under), at that point the cleric, who is already in the town looking for the bard, will make an appearance and the swap will happen. I will probably have that happen as they leave the temple rather then do it when I was, after a dinner held in their honour by the town mayor. With hindsight if the player had indicated he was not happy playing the bard a bit longer originally then I could have had the cleric find his way into the temple hunting for him (the town guard know the party are down there dealing with this problem) but the player had stated he was happy waiting and in game has been fully active and participating so given no indication he was not. A learning for me, but I won't be changing my story telling style as all the other players love what i am doing in regards to little plot hooks and hints to the parts of their backstory they know nothing about. What I think I need to help him understand is that when I present a thread he is absolutely ok to say, nope, not following that, I want to do this instead. My plot hooks are not railroads they are just little suggestions of things the players might like to do if they don't have better ideas themselves.
Ok a mutual friend in the game has just reached out, apparently he has been talking to her about it, won't get into specifics but she has explained he does this sometimes generally in life, has a sudden need to do a thing opposite to what he has been happy with, or expect everyone to change to suit his needs and doesn't so much ignore, but can't see anyone else's perspective, wont go into details but it is linked to his personality and who he is and I get it and fully understand, she is going to talk to him because she tends to be the person who talks him down in these cases and helps him stop, breathe and see things from others perspective. She is of the opinion that the rest of the party would work around a sudden switch but they would all prefer a more realistic slow approach I have detailed out. In her opinion it will make it easier to integrate the new character into the party if they have the time to do the swap properly and get to do the dialogue as to why Broch needs to leave. She also agreed killing Broch off is a bad idea because the players and characters love the character so the natural drive for all would be to try and get him resurrected as opposed to just leaving him and moving on.
So I am going to see if he appears at this evenings session or not, if he does I am going to have a quick one to one chat with him (everything has been by text so far, which is probably another lesson to learn on my side) and just reassure him the swap is def happening and I will pull it forward to make sure if not by the end of the session now, then as much as I can it will be the next session. Even if it is a very quick hello and the explanation happens at the start of session 3 at least he will know the character is on the board and live.
Love this. I recommend doing this or something like it. Gets the characters immediately and permanently swapped. The player should like it. (Make sure the other players know this was his choice so they don't think you would arbitrarily do this to them).
I agree with this as well.
One of my players had this idea to change his character in a pretty dramatic way. He was not happy with the RP he had done up to this point, and rather than just changing his RP to make himself happier, he wanted to come up with this dramatic change for his character to explain the RP change. He asked me to come up with some way of doing this change that was long-term (multiple sessions) but not permanent. (I'm going to be coy about the change because he might still want to do it and the other players may read this forum.)
Well, I could come up with some super-temporary ways to do the change that the cleric could reverse the next day with a Restoration or Remove Curse spell. And I could come up with some permanent ways to do the change. But I could not figure out, mechanically, how I would do it "long term" but not permanent. After a few weeks he became frustrated, why couldn't I "just do it" so he could get on with his RP. So I finally threw it to him: OK, *you* come up with a method of doing this and let me know what you come up with.
Several more weeks went by. When I asked him what he came up with -- he had nothing. By asking him to come up with it, I made him realize that, there is not really a good way to do what he was trying to do, mechanically, in D&D, and even narratively, it didn't make a lot of sense, what he was asking to have done. He finally abandoned this idea. Whether he's going to come back to it, I don't know. But I'm going to make HIM come up with it. You want to make this change to your character, YOU figure out how to make it work. Or at least help me do it. Don't just throw it to me and say "you do it, and do it now."
Same thing with changing characters. Your player wants to switch characters in the middle of a dungeon -- OK, ask HIM to figure out how to do it. At least, do that for next time.
For this time, do the gem thing. It's awesome.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, it sounds to me like you are too invested in this bard character. Let the plot hook go. It's OK to abandon them.
One of my players stopped coming after a couple of sessions. He has severe family/life issues. He said he was coming back "next session" every time at first. I planned a 4th level major adventure around his character's background. Then he never showed, and when I realized he wasn't going to, I had to slot the 6th level adventure into 4th level, which kind of messed with the story. Now that 4th level story has never happened. It would have been worthless to do his character's backstory with me running him as an NPC, so I just had to let it go.
The Bard player wants to switch characters and play a cleric. You need to accept this and let the bard go completely. Don't try to keep doing your "really cool story" about the bard once no one is playing the bard.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The issue here is that the player himself has tied his cleric to the bard, I didn't come up with the cleric backstory the player did and made it intrinsically linked to the bard, I have reached out to him and asked if he wants to change that and he is insisting no, his cleric was the advisor to the queen the bard had an affair with has been sent to seek out the bard to tell him he needs to return to the queen, he then wants his bard to go off back to that city to one day become the king of the city, he wanted the king to be dead and his bard to become the king just automatically, which i am not willing to do in case he has a change of heart and decides to bring the Bard back himself and then says, oh I am a king now, great.
I disagree I am overly invested in the Bard I am happy if the party never follow that story thread at all, what I have tried to do is accomodate what the Player wanted and the story he came up with, while also then using that potential link as a way to further the story. The city state of Abolonia (where the bard comes from) is under threat from the Empire of Etresh and will at some point in the campaign either fall, or fight off the threat. The players may be involved in that or they may hear about it as a side bit of information far on the other side of the continent. The bard being part of that story would have been cool, the Cleric coming from that same city means the event at least if it happens will have meaning, but if it comes to nothing then so be it.
Anyway I have taken onboard many of the comments here, thank you, I probably need to adjust my thinking slightly, but think there is a learning for the player as well in terms of communication. Will let you know how it all pans out.
Well, what happened?
I see. It's the player who has too much invested in the Bard. So much so that they want to change characters and push the Bard's story past the level you would allow as a player character. In that case, sure, let the Bard become the King, and tell the player to enjoy their Cleric, because they never get to play the Bard again. Or offer to let them play the Bard they seem to love so much.
<Insert clever signature here>