You should have had a conversation about this before, but definitely you should talk about it now.
Once the player gives up the character, it’s not theirs anymore. You can do what you want with them.
Says who? Where is it written in the DMG or PHB or anywhere that this is a rule in D&D? I'd like a page reference from one of the official rulebooks, please. Because I am aware of no written rule in D&D that once a player has retired (for lack of a better term) a PC, it becomes an NPC.
Is there a rule that says that a player is allowed to give up (or retire) a character that they are playing?
Is there a rule that says that a player is allowed to give up (or retire) a character that they are playing?
How do you stop them? If you say no, they can just not play anymore, which is the same as them giving up the character.
I have been arguing in this thread that there is a courteous thing to do. Some people seem to be hiding behind some sort of unwritten rule with the claim "the DM doesn't HAVE to be courteous to the players!"
No, the DM does not have to. And the players don't have to keep coming to the game sessions either.
This entire situation was handled poorly by both the DM and the player.
If the player did want to pull the PC out of the game, the DM should have had a discussion with the entire table. The other players should not have been shocked and surprised by this. Upon being given to understand that the player was not having fun playing this character any more, and wanted to switch characters, everyone would have been on board. The one PC might not have tried to contact via Sending because the player knew what was going on and realized what was happening. The DM might have been able to explain to the player that once the PC is given up, it becomes an NPC at this table, and so on. All the problems could have been solved if both the DM and the player had behaved in a more courteous manner toward each other.
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 have been arguing in this thread that there is a courteous thing to do. Some people seem to be hiding behind some sort of unwritten rule with the claim "the DM doesn't HAVE to be courteous to the players!"
Well, not really. You ahve been arguing that it's against the rules for the DM to control NPCs. You know, with you asking for page numbers multiple times and all that?
About a year ago I had a player ask to dump his PC and make a new one, right while I was ramping up a great story arc for his character. So I asked him if he wanted to retain executive control over the character (since there was about to be an imminent bit of story coming up), or what all he wanted for the character. (Like quite literally the very next session the party was about to have a story point land in their lap that I had already been foreshadowing through prophetic dreams sent to that character by his patron that there was a thing she wanted him to do. I mean, a deal’s a deal after all, and he had gotten his pact boon as promised, so it was time to pay his debt to her.) The player said he just wanted to be rid of the character. And never play him again. Apparently the character evolved into someone the player hated and he just wanted free. I informed the player that I would be borrowing the character for a bit then before he headed of to wherever.
My point is, your idea isn’t wrong, but neither was the player’s. In future, 10 minutes of conversation can go a long way towards avoiding similar situations.
I have been arguing in this thread that there is a courteous thing to do. Some people seem to be hiding behind some sort of unwritten rule with the claim "the DM doesn't HAVE to be courteous to the players!"
Well, not really. You ahve been arguing that it's against the rules for the DM to control NPCs. You know, with you asking for page numbers multiple times and all that?
Well, it reads more to me that BioWizard has been arguing not that it’s “against the rules” and more just that there are no rules to support it.
I see your point, and I can understand doing it as a courtesy, but I disagree that it’s an obligation.
I guess I would argue that as a DM, being courteous to the players is an obligation. I sure wouldn't want to play with a DM who is discourteous.
How about a discourteous player who throws in the bin what the DM has prepared ? Why should the DM be courteous with such a "person" ?
I have to say... I side more with BioWizard on this and, to be honest, Lyxen, and I may be completely off-base with this, but it seems like you're projecting an awful lot into this situation. We have had 1 post from the OP, we've gotten a single person's perspective without a lot of details about how things got to be the way they are. But it seems like a few specific details of this story have jumped out at you as Cardinal Sins... abandoning the active plotline and all the work that went into it.
However, even assuming you're 100% correct... that the exiting PC maliciously wasted the DM's time and deliberately threw a wrench in the entire campaign and then was being rude and selfish when he argued with the DM at the end... I think the correct thing to do would have still been for the DM to turn to the player when another character attempted to Sending their abandoned character and simply say, "how do they respond?"
As the DM, they're still fully in their right to say, "No, you abandoned them... they're an NPC now". But that doesn't seem to be what the OP is intending... after all, why even post the question in that case? I'm certain we all have different ideas on how we would handle this as DM's, or how we would want this to be handled if it was our PC being abandoned, but the main point that I think BioWizard is getting at is that, under ideal conditions, the answer is for everyone present to be adults about this situation and admit this is a game and story-telling exercise participated in by a group of likeminded individuals, and that a drastic change like this is something that should be talked about as a group to make sure that it's handled in the way that is most enjoyable for everyone present. That didn't happen in this situation, and everyone needs to talk about what's going to cause the least trouble going forward, whether that means creating agreed-upon rules for abandoning characters, or just realizing that one or more member of this group won't be able to enjoy themselves and might as well find something else to do on a Sunday night.
the main point that I think BioWizard is getting at is that, under ideal conditions, the answer is for everyone present to be adults about this situation and admit this is a game and story-telling exercise participated in by a group of likeminded individuals, and that a drastic change like this is something that should be talked about as a group to make sure that it's handled in the way that is most enjoyable for everyone present
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
And in addition, that there is no right way to do this in the global sense, for everyone, but only the right way to do it at each table.
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 would also suggest making a rule that players need to give some notice before switching characters at your table and allow you to plan an exit and an entrance for their new PC. It'll make life a lot easier.
In an ideal world, I agree.
However, in practice, when a player tires of a PC enough that they come to you and say "I want out," this is usually something that has been coming for them for a while, so asking them to wait even longer may be a non-starter for the player. To you, as DM, they are just telling you now, so it just happened today, can they wait a few weeks to let you wrap up the current story line? Not a big deal. But to them, they have been souring on this character for weeks already, maybe months, and didn't tell you about it until matters had come to a head. At this point, waiting longer is not just "a few weeks" but it is several more weeks on top of a bunch of others, and extending it out that much longer may be something the player doesn't find acceptable.
So yes, ask, if the player is willing to help you orchestrate a "graceful exit." But if the player really doesn't want to play this PC anymore, don't force them. Otherwise you're asking that player to be miserable for the good of the group, and that almost never works. People just aren't that self-sacrificing about a game -- they'll fail to show up or stop playing instead.
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 have to say, a lot of DMs seem to have low standards for players.
If you're being paid for your efforts, then sure, bend over backwards and do whatever suits your clients.
But otherwise... Stop tolerating jerks at your tables. You're not a doormat. A person who just drops their character willy nilly, without talking to you about it first, and then gets pissed when you try to keep the world consistent, isn't a person you should waste your time with, IMO. D&D, like most social pursuits, is way more enjoyable when shared with thoughtful, respectful, reasonable people.
You're the DM pouring your sweat into this, after all. Good players are to be valued, but jerks aren't worth it -- there are a lot more fish in the ocean.
Sure, kick the player out if your game. Kill their character with a surprise tarrasque attack at level 2. But don't take over their player agency by making decisions for their character. It's their character from beginning to end. It's your role as the DM to decide when that end is, but not the path between.
However, even assuming you're 100% correct... that the exiting PC maliciously wasted the DM's time and deliberately threw a wrench in the entire campaign and then was being rude and selfish when he argued with the DM at the end... I think the correct thing to do would have still been for the DM to turn to the player when another character attempted to Sending their abandoned character and simply say, "how do they respond?"
That would have been ideal but not everybody can respond in an ideal fashion when caught flat footed.
I would have been surprised too if somebody up and quit a PC with no warning. And then wanted to claim continued control after they dumped the character?
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?"
When I made the post I tried to be as objective as humanly possible because I actually want a resolution to my problem which would be a flawed at best resolution had I been subjective.
The backstory is the character is chaotic and in game lack of better words atm like a child with a gun. When things go their way happy and carefree when not wild magic fluctuations followed by a shatter.
They got into an argument with an npc(druid) at a tavern at which point another player casted silence after trying to persuade them to calm down. The druid still capable of shape shifting did as a panther but didn't attack while the sorcerer(PC) couldn't attack upon which point the rest of the party went between the two of them and tried to calm it down(imagine a fight at a club i guess)
The player felt betrayed by the rest of the party on that note, had the group loot on them(various precious dusts, gold etc), run off from the tavern (all this happened near the end of the session) went towards the gargoyle, started it with the activation trinket they had on the group loot and flew (which I was told as the session ended due to them staying silent for the next 10 or so minutes).
Their words where: and that's how PC left the party.
Later on, they had created a new character but told me they reflected a bit and that I shouldn't throw away what ever hooks existed on the character.
So a session in later I asked if they commit to the new character upon which I was told that it depends on the group and if they search for them etc, or if they search for them only for the loot and not really care for them.
Also (still them talking); that it doesn't matter if it will be for 2 sessions or 200, they want a character to feel right with their dynamic and they are willing to put effort in. Them attempting to come back would be 💯 decision/persuasion of the group.
At which point I was sure sounds good.
2 sessions later (last session)the thing happened with sending which would have been 3 days in world they would have arrived; which means the world continuous moving and they wouldn't know what transcribed in between due to them being out of scope with the player.
The party decided to have city c as their next destination last session and it's gonna take them at least 8 more days to arrive and all this time the EX PC will be doing stuff.
This sounds like a player I would not enjoy having at the table. Of course if they are a real life friend, and you are good outside of the game, this can make it hard.
The player felt betrayed by the rest of the party
I'm not sure how the party intervening to stop a fight in a tavern qualifies as a "betrayal" -- this sounds like an excuse for a player who has tired of a character and wants to try something different. I'm curious... does the player consider making off with everyone's loot a betrayal? Because THAT is, and intervening to stop you from getting into a fight you can't win, isn't. Making off with all the party's loot is a wangrod thing to do (see Matt Colville's YouTube video called "the Wangrod defense" if you haven't yet), at least without a discussion at the table OOC and an agreement by everyone that this kind of thing (stealing from the party) is acceptable in game play. "It's what my character would do" is not sufficient (it's literally what Colville names "the Wangrod defense" of a player's PC actions).
Later on, they had created a new character but told me they reflected a bit and that I shouldn't throw away what ever hooks existed on the character.
Here I would say absolutely not, as a DM. This is having their cake and eating it too. If you're going to take the character out of the campaign and start up a new one, fine, but the old one is gone. Let me play it as an NPC if you want, or request that it goes "off stage" and is never seen or heard from again, either way I will put up with. I will not put up with players switching into whatever character is "most beneficial" at the moment, which is what it sounds like this person wants to do.
I asked if they commit to the new character upon which I was told that it depends on the group and if they search for them etc, or if they search for them only for the loot and not really care for them.
Again, I would not allow this. Either you play the new one, or the old one. Also, the whole idea of "I will only go back to the old PC if the party searches for me because they want ME back and not just their loot" sounds like an unbelievable prima donna who needs everything to be all about them -- Again, I would not allow it. Either you play Character A, or Character B. You switch and stick to the new one or keep the old one. No swapping back and forth. It makes the DM's job way too much harder (is there going to be a sorcerer or a ranger with the party in the next encounter? etc...).
I think you should take EX PC out of the game. Don't respond to any more Sendings. Don't give them any clues to the character's whereabouts. Provide them some neat extra treasure in the next dungeon to make up for what they lost. No one ever sees or hears from EX PC again.
Why would I do this? Because it seems like this player is an attention hog who wants all the spotlight, and did this whole stealing thing just to be a pig for attention from the party and get the party to RP tracking the PC down and showing how much they care about EX PC. No, you do not get to do that -- the game is not all about you. I would not enable this kind of behavior on the part of the player. EX PC has been retired. Retired PCs cannot come back into the game for any reason. End of story.
Now... I still think that in terms of the Sending, what would happen should, as a courtesy, be discussed at the table OOC first, before the DM just answers as the now-NPC. However, the descriptions of the player's behavior definitely make me think they should not be allowed to keep controlling the PC. The choice I would give is "I answer, or no answer comes, up to you."
There is no way I would allow the player to keep picking between which PC they want to play. One or the other. Pick now and that's it unless the character dies.
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 have been arguing in this thread that there is a courteous thing to do. Some people seem to be hiding behind some sort of unwritten rule with the claim "the DM doesn't HAVE to be courteous to the players!"
Well, not really. You ahve been arguing that it's against the rules for the DM to control NPCs. You know, with you asking for page numbers multiple times and all that?
Well, it reads more to me that BioWizard has been arguing not that it’s “against the rules” and more just that there are no rules to support it.
Well, he is, since multiple people have pointed out that the DM is, according to the rules, the person who controls the non player characters.
You absolutely turn into an NPC if you leave and make a new character.... why would there be a rule for that? Is there a rule against me making and running 5 PCs at once? Can I do that? Of course not.
You absolutely turn into an NPC if you leave and make a new character.... why would there be a rule for that? Is there a rule against me making and running 5 PCs at once? Can I do that? Of course not.
Where is it written that you can't play 5 PCs? You absolutely can, and I have. In AD&D, in fact, I played 10 at once, when it was just me and a friend of mine, and we wanted what we called a "full party" at the time (which was 1 of every class).
It may be traditional that your old character turns into an NPC at many tables, like it is traditional that you don't run more than 1 PC at a time, but there is nothing stopping an individual table from running it any number of other ways.
Again, people shouldn't make these blanket declarative statements which are nothing more than "this is how I do it at my table" as if they are rules everyone needs to follow.
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.
Am I wrong in going with this mindset? If yes how should I approach it so I can also keep my world consistent?(please keep in mind due to time constraints I cannot really offer one shots to the player for their ex character). If no how should I approach the player on this?
I don't think you're wrong on this. Ideally you and this player should've had a conversation away from the table about what each of your expectations were and how you planned to move forward with the campaign. Honestly it sounds like you were all caught off guard, you made an on the fly decision (which is your job) and this player reacted poorly to it. I think you have another conversation about how you're going to handle it going forward. I think its totally reasonable for the player to work with you about how they feel the now-NPC should be played what his/her motivations are, etc. That being said you as the DM are ultimately responsible for logical consistency and making rulings at the table so I don't think you did anything wrong.
You absolutely turn into an NPC if you leave and make a new character.... why would there be a rule for that? Is there a rule against me making and running 5 PCs at once? Can I do that? Of course not.
Where is it written that you can't play 5 PCs? You absolutely can, and I have. In AD&D, in fact, I played 10 at once, when it was just me and a friend of mine, and we wanted what we called a "full party" at the time (which was 1 of every class).
It may be traditional that your old character turns into an NPC at many tables, like it is traditional that you don't run more than 1 PC at a time, but there is nothing stopping an individual table from running it any number of other ways.
Again, people shouldn't make these blanket declarative statements which are nothing more than "this is how I do it at my table" as if they are rules everyone needs to follow.
Where do we draw the thought? 10 PCs? 100 PCs?
I don’t think anyone would argue against that it is assumed each player gets only one character unless the DM explicitly authorizes otherwise.
You absolutely turn into an NPC if you leave and make a new character.... why would there be a rule for that? Is there a rule against me making and running 5 PCs at once? Can I do that? Of course not.
Where is it written that you can't play 5 PCs? You absolutely can, and I have. In AD&D, in fact, I played 10 at once, when it was just me and a friend of mine, and we wanted what we called a "full party" at the time (which was 1 of every class).
It may be traditional that your old character turns into an NPC at many tables, like it is traditional that you don't run more than 1 PC at a time, but there is nothing stopping an individual table from running it any number of other ways.
Again, people shouldn't make these blanket declarative statements which are nothing more than "this is how I do it at my table" as if they are rules everyone needs to follow.
Where is it written that you can't just say the phrase "I summon the great Mustard Spirit to guide my hand" which causes you to always role a critical hit when attacking? The whole "it doesn't say that you can't, so you can"-argument is not really one worth bringing up in a serious conversation.
Where is it written that you can't just say the phrase "I summon the great Mustard Spirit to guide my hand" which causes you to always role a critical hit when attacking? The whole "it doesn't say that you can't, so you can"-argument is not really one worth bringing up in a serious conversation.
To answer your question, pretty much all of Chapter 9. It breaks down how actions and stuff work. Since that’s not one of the listed generic actions, and since nothing grants that ability, you can’t do it. That’s the beauty of 5e, “If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t do it.” Which also supports BioWiz’s position.
Is there a rule that says that a player is allowed to give up (or retire) a character that they are playing?
How do you stop them? If you say no, they can just not play anymore, which is the same as them giving up the character.
I have been arguing in this thread that there is a courteous thing to do. Some people seem to be hiding behind some sort of unwritten rule with the claim "the DM doesn't HAVE to be courteous to the players!"
No, the DM does not have to. And the players don't have to keep coming to the game sessions either.
This entire situation was handled poorly by both the DM and the player.
If the player did want to pull the PC out of the game, the DM should have had a discussion with the entire table. The other players should not have been shocked and surprised by this. Upon being given to understand that the player was not having fun playing this character any more, and wanted to switch characters, everyone would have been on board. The one PC might not have tried to contact via Sending because the player knew what was going on and realized what was happening. The DM might have been able to explain to the player that once the PC is given up, it becomes an NPC at this table, and so on. All the problems could have been solved if both the DM and the player had behaved in a more courteous manner toward each other.
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.
Well, not really. You ahve been arguing that it's against the rules for the DM to control NPCs. You know, with you asking for page numbers multiple times and all that?
About a year ago I had a player ask to dump his PC and make a new one, right while I was ramping up a great story arc for his character. So I asked him if he wanted to retain executive control over the character (since there was about to be an imminent bit of story coming up), or what all he wanted for the character. (Like quite literally the very next session the party was about to have a story point land in their lap that I had already been foreshadowing through prophetic dreams sent to that character by his patron that there was a thing she wanted him to do. I mean, a deal’s a deal after all, and he had gotten his pact boon as promised, so it was time to pay his debt to her.) The player said he just wanted to be rid of the character. And never play him again. Apparently the character evolved into someone the player hated and he just wanted free. I informed the player that I would be borrowing the character for a bit then before he headed of to wherever.
My point is, your idea isn’t wrong, but neither was the player’s. In future, 10 minutes of conversation can go a long way towards avoiding similar situations.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, it reads more to me that BioWizard has been arguing not that it’s “against the rules” and more just that there are no rules to support it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have to say... I side more with BioWizard on this and, to be honest, Lyxen, and I may be completely off-base with this, but it seems like you're projecting an awful lot into this situation. We have had 1 post from the OP, we've gotten a single person's perspective without a lot of details about how things got to be the way they are. But it seems like a few specific details of this story have jumped out at you as Cardinal Sins... abandoning the active plotline and all the work that went into it.
However, even assuming you're 100% correct... that the exiting PC maliciously wasted the DM's time and deliberately threw a wrench in the entire campaign and then was being rude and selfish when he argued with the DM at the end... I think the correct thing to do would have still been for the DM to turn to the player when another character attempted to Sending their abandoned character and simply say, "how do they respond?"
As the DM, they're still fully in their right to say, "No, you abandoned them... they're an NPC now". But that doesn't seem to be what the OP is intending... after all, why even post the question in that case? I'm certain we all have different ideas on how we would handle this as DM's, or how we would want this to be handled if it was our PC being abandoned, but the main point that I think BioWizard is getting at is that, under ideal conditions, the answer is for everyone present to be adults about this situation and admit this is a game and story-telling exercise participated in by a group of likeminded individuals, and that a drastic change like this is something that should be talked about as a group to make sure that it's handled in the way that is most enjoyable for everyone present. That didn't happen in this situation, and everyone needs to talk about what's going to cause the least trouble going forward, whether that means creating agreed-upon rules for abandoning characters, or just realizing that one or more member of this group won't be able to enjoy themselves and might as well find something else to do on a Sunday night.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
And in addition, that there is no right way to do this in the global sense, for everyone, but only the right way to do it at each table.
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 an ideal world, I agree.
However, in practice, when a player tires of a PC enough that they come to you and say "I want out," this is usually something that has been coming for them for a while, so asking them to wait even longer may be a non-starter for the player. To you, as DM, they are just telling you now, so it just happened today, can they wait a few weeks to let you wrap up the current story line? Not a big deal. But to them, they have been souring on this character for weeks already, maybe months, and didn't tell you about it until matters had come to a head. At this point, waiting longer is not just "a few weeks" but it is several more weeks on top of a bunch of others, and extending it out that much longer may be something the player doesn't find acceptable.
So yes, ask, if the player is willing to help you orchestrate a "graceful exit." But if the player really doesn't want to play this PC anymore, don't force them. Otherwise you're asking that player to be miserable for the good of the group, and that almost never works. People just aren't that self-sacrificing about a game -- they'll fail to show up or stop playing instead.
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 have to say, a lot of DMs seem to have low standards for players.
If you're being paid for your efforts, then sure, bend over backwards and do whatever suits your clients.
But otherwise... Stop tolerating jerks at your tables. You're not a doormat. A person who just drops their character willy nilly, without talking to you about it first, and then gets pissed when you try to keep the world consistent, isn't a person you should waste your time with, IMO. D&D, like most social pursuits, is way more enjoyable when shared with thoughtful, respectful, reasonable people.
You're the DM pouring your sweat into this, after all. Good players are to be valued, but jerks aren't worth it -- there are a lot more fish in the ocean.
Sure, kick the player out if your game. Kill their character with a surprise tarrasque attack at level 2. But don't take over their player agency by making decisions for their character. It's their character from beginning to end. It's your role as the DM to decide when that end is, but not the path between.
That would have been ideal but not everybody can respond in an ideal fashion when caught flat footed.
I would have been surprised too if somebody up and quit a PC with no warning. And then wanted to claim continued control after they dumped the character?
"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
When I made the post I tried to be as objective as humanly possible because I actually want a resolution to my problem which would be a flawed at best resolution had I been subjective.
The backstory is the character is chaotic and in game lack of better words atm like a child with a gun. When things go their way happy and carefree when not wild magic fluctuations followed by a shatter.
They got into an argument with an npc(druid) at a tavern at which point another player casted silence after trying to persuade them to calm down. The druid still capable of shape shifting did as a panther but didn't attack while the sorcerer(PC) couldn't attack upon which point the rest of the party went between the two of them and tried to calm it down(imagine a fight at a club i guess)
The player felt betrayed by the rest of the party on that note, had the group loot on them(various precious dusts, gold etc), run off from the tavern (all this happened near the end of the session) went towards the gargoyle, started it with the activation trinket they had on the group loot and flew (which I was told as the session ended due to them staying silent for the next 10 or so minutes).
Their words where: and that's how PC left the party.
Later on, they had created a new character but told me they reflected a bit and that I shouldn't throw away what ever hooks existed on the character.
So a session in later I asked if they commit to the new character upon which I was told that it depends on the group and if they search for them etc, or if they search for them only for the loot and not really care for them.
Also (still them talking); that it doesn't matter if it will be for 2 sessions or 200, they want a character to feel right with their dynamic and they are willing to put effort in. Them attempting to come back would be 💯 decision/persuasion of the group.
At which point I was sure sounds good.
2 sessions later (last session)the thing happened with sending which would have been 3 days in world they would have arrived; which means the world continuous moving and they wouldn't know what transcribed in between due to them being out of scope with the player.
The party decided to have city c as their next destination last session and it's gonna take them at least 8 more days to arrive and all this time the EX PC will be doing stuff.
Please let me know if you have more questions
This sounds like a player I would not enjoy having at the table. Of course if they are a real life friend, and you are good outside of the game, this can make it hard.
I'm not sure how the party intervening to stop a fight in a tavern qualifies as a "betrayal" -- this sounds like an excuse for a player who has tired of a character and wants to try something different. I'm curious... does the player consider making off with everyone's loot a betrayal? Because THAT is, and intervening to stop you from getting into a fight you can't win, isn't. Making off with all the party's loot is a wangrod thing to do (see Matt Colville's YouTube video called "the Wangrod defense" if you haven't yet), at least without a discussion at the table OOC and an agreement by everyone that this kind of thing (stealing from the party) is acceptable in game play. "It's what my character would do" is not sufficient (it's literally what Colville names "the Wangrod defense" of a player's PC actions).
Here I would say absolutely not, as a DM. This is having their cake and eating it too. If you're going to take the character out of the campaign and start up a new one, fine, but the old one is gone. Let me play it as an NPC if you want, or request that it goes "off stage" and is never seen or heard from again, either way I will put up with. I will not put up with players switching into whatever character is "most beneficial" at the moment, which is what it sounds like this person wants to do.
Again, I would not allow this. Either you play the new one, or the old one. Also, the whole idea of "I will only go back to the old PC if the party searches for me because they want ME back and not just their loot" sounds like an unbelievable prima donna who needs everything to be all about them -- Again, I would not allow it. Either you play Character A, or Character B. You switch and stick to the new one or keep the old one. No swapping back and forth. It makes the DM's job way too much harder (is there going to be a sorcerer or a ranger with the party in the next encounter? etc...).
I think you should take EX PC out of the game. Don't respond to any more Sendings. Don't give them any clues to the character's whereabouts. Provide them some neat extra treasure in the next dungeon to make up for what they lost. No one ever sees or hears from EX PC again.
Why would I do this? Because it seems like this player is an attention hog who wants all the spotlight, and did this whole stealing thing just to be a pig for attention from the party and get the party to RP tracking the PC down and showing how much they care about EX PC. No, you do not get to do that -- the game is not all about you. I would not enable this kind of behavior on the part of the player. EX PC has been retired. Retired PCs cannot come back into the game for any reason. End of story.
Now... I still think that in terms of the Sending, what would happen should, as a courtesy, be discussed at the table OOC first, before the DM just answers as the now-NPC. However, the descriptions of the player's behavior definitely make me think they should not be allowed to keep controlling the PC. The choice I would give is "I answer, or no answer comes, up to you."
There is no way I would allow the player to keep picking between which PC they want to play. One or the other. Pick now and that's it unless the character dies.
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.
Well, he is, since multiple people have pointed out that the DM is, according to the rules, the person who controls the non player characters.
You absolutely turn into an NPC if you leave and make a new character.... why would there be a rule for that? Is there a rule against me making and running 5 PCs at once? Can I do that? Of course not.
Where is it written that you can't play 5 PCs? You absolutely can, and I have. In AD&D, in fact, I played 10 at once, when it was just me and a friend of mine, and we wanted what we called a "full party" at the time (which was 1 of every class).
It may be traditional that your old character turns into an NPC at many tables, like it is traditional that you don't run more than 1 PC at a time, but there is nothing stopping an individual table from running it any number of other ways.
Again, people shouldn't make these blanket declarative statements which are nothing more than "this is how I do it at my table" as if they are rules everyone needs to follow.
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 think you're wrong on this. Ideally you and this player should've had a conversation away from the table about what each of your expectations were and how you planned to move forward with the campaign. Honestly it sounds like you were all caught off guard, you made an on the fly decision (which is your job) and this player reacted poorly to it. I think you have another conversation about how you're going to handle it going forward. I think its totally reasonable for the player to work with you about how they feel the now-NPC should be played what his/her motivations are, etc. That being said you as the DM are ultimately responsible for logical consistency and making rulings at the table so I don't think you did anything wrong.
Where do we draw the thought? 10 PCs? 100 PCs?
I don’t think anyone would argue against that it is assumed each player gets only one character unless the DM explicitly authorizes otherwise.
Where is it written that you can't just say the phrase "I summon the great Mustard Spirit to guide my hand" which causes you to always role a critical hit when attacking? The whole "it doesn't say that you can't, so you can"-argument is not really one worth bringing up in a serious conversation.
To answer your question, pretty much all of Chapter 9. It breaks down how actions and stuff work. Since that’s not one of the listed generic actions, and since nothing grants that ability, you can’t do it. That’s the beauty of 5e, “If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t do it.” Which also supports BioWiz’s position.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting