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.
Well, at least these details were clear from the OP's original post: "I was a bit shocked bc that character had a lot of plot hooks attached to them, and they tell me their character started flying towards city c to meet her majesty of the country (happened to be her sister(plot point)) from city b which they were."
The thing is that I happen to have, as a standard, infinitely more respect for DMs who actually do a lot of work to prepare a campaign than for players who in general just sit at a table to enjoy the adventure.
In the absence of any other criterion, this means for me, that the balance will always lean towards the DM in that kind of case, because, in addition to the respect to the person, I think that there should be respect for the work done. As for myself, I always thank the DM for preparing an adventure, and never deliberately trash the plot (assuming that there is one). If I don't like it, I will discuss it to see if I missed something, and potentially not play again if it really cannot be my cup of tea, but I will not whine, complain, and I will certainly not use silly roleplaying excuses or generate conflict just because I'm unhappy about the adventure.
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?"
And this is where I totally disagree. The player acted like a spoiled child, and the OP's latest post confirms that kind of overall attitude. I've had 3 children, and they should be taught limits. If a player abandons a character petulantly and say that he will not play it anymore, I'm sorry, but he relinquishes any right to act as that character ever again.
The player had apparently trashed enough storylines and plot hooks with an important NPC of the campaign, I totally understand and support the DM who did not want a trash reply to worsen the situation.
As the DM, they're still fully in their right to say, "No, you abandoned them... they're an NPC now".
And that is what happened, so what it the problem here ?
But that doesn't seem to be what the OP is intending...
Where did you get this from ? Fron the OP: "I feel that when in such a scenario that PC becomes NPC since it's out of the scope of the players and I need to keep my world logically consistent."
after all, why even post the question in that case?
Did you even read the OP's post: "Am I wrong in going with this mindset? If yes how should I approach it so I can also keep my world consistent?" ?
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
Please read again OP's posts and explain to me how the player behaved like an adult ?
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.
And I think that I never said anything to contradict that. But in the end, for me, the respect that I have for a DM trying to salvage a campaign is infinitely higher than the respect that I have for a player you plays like a murderhobo and trashes the plot just because he is thwarted in his rampage. So yes, in an ideal situation, I would agree with you, but this is real life, and some behaviours by some players should be firmly curbed.
And no, I'm only sort of projecting in this case, I have a completely different way of DMing, coming from 42+ years of practice and running LARPS for 250+ people for 30+ years. At my tables, I have never seen behaviour like that player's because I've played in clubs but mostly with friends who are indeed much more adult and mature, and respectful about the work done. And I've also had the chance to always be able to choose freely the people that I wanted to game with. But I have seen this in LARPs, and the only thing it needed was a firm talk to the offender to explain that he was basically annoying everyone, that his behaviour was disrespectful and not to be tolerated, and that he could change it or leave. I think a few left, but most understood (children and some teens are always testing limits, but are usually very happy and comforted when they can find some), stayed and ended up enjoying the experience.
So, again, please read OP's posts again and tell me that you support that kind of behaviour from a player more than a concerned DM's, who tries to keep his world consistent so that his other players can be happy playing in it, and who is just seeking some reassurance that he did not act too badly ?
Good Lord, are you an exhausting person. You absolutely do not need to break down everything I say in individual sentences to "get" me. No one is taking the Player's side against the DM... the mature people are saying that everyone involved should treat each other with respect, even if the Player is in the wrong and the DM made a perfectly reasonable response when caught off guard. If the Player can't play nice with the party or come to a satisfying compromise with the DM in regards to their abandoned character, then the DM shouldn't make the game worse for everyone else just satisfy this one disruptive player. But what we are saying is that they should talk it out. Please, please, just reply to the bolded statement. That's literally the only part of this statement that's important. You don't need to pick and choose individual sentences to pick apart and "win" the 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.
Well, by that logic you can't also play more than one character and a player can't control an NPC, so you are contradicting yourself. But thanks for proving my point for me. ;)
Saying "Both parties should have a mature discussion about what happened" is not "clearly" taking the side of the player over the DM. I'm not even disagreeing that the player was being immature and over-reacted when the consequences of their actions entered the game itself. I'm not even saying that the DM was wrong for what they did... if anything, they were very understanding and supportive of their player, in spite of the massive challenge it presented them. I'm just saying that it would have gone easier if they had gotten everyone together to discuss this with the group and set some ground rules and, but since it's too late for that the best option is for everyone to come together later and discuss what happened. At that point whether they come up with a unique solution for their table, or if the DM lays down the law and makes clear that abandoned characters become NPCs and the player can either play along or quit... that's fine as well. But the conversation should happen.
I know you seem to think nobody reads anything, because, I assume, you believe your position is so obvious and logical that the only reason someone wouldn't reach the exact same conclusion as you must mean they didn't thoroughly read the same thing you did, but to avoid embarrassing yourself, please find a different argument. That's clearly not what's happening, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
I think the fact that one side of this is arguing "bro you can totally control like 5 characters at once" is pretty telling. DM acted reasonably, some people just are not into being reasonable.
I had a whole argument written up, but I realize that we're basically just talking in circles around each other. I apologize for inserting myself in this discussion and it's hard not to insert snark or digs, but the question seems to be answered enough for the OP to move forward and any more argument from me would just be me attempting to soothe my own ego. I will say that I disagree with you on broad themes and tone, but do agree on a lot of the specifics, and I'm sorry for pushing insults into my earlier posts.
I'm going to need to homebrew the special item "Jackson's Enthralling Popcorn".
Too much content for me to read and respond to meaningfully, so I won't jump in too deeply:
+1 for DMs controlling prematurely retired PCs by default, if necessary for the story.
+1 for a player being responsible for expressing their preferences thoughtfully.
+1 for a DM being considerate of their player's wishes.
The issue for me is that the player responded angrily. Transitions are often messy and everyone involved needs to be comfortable with improvising until they can discuss it calmly outside of the game.
Also here for statblocks on that Mustard spirit. Public homebrew links anyone?
I think Memnosyne summation is the most productive take in the latter arc of this thread, capping the topic into lessons learned and set forth in like a DMG tip sidebar format. Only area I'd expand upon is the handling of "legacy" abandoned characters. I don't like the idea of a character a player "dropped" pulling focus for story too long into game. It literally privileges a "has been" figure in the game over the players. So I'd just say put some script doctoring to the original plot points and write the NPC out as expeditiously as possible. Let them exist as a point of contact / patron but I think there should be a divestment for the sake of the other players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Overall my verdict would be that the player is completely out of line.
First of all you can't just retire a character without any notice. That is highly disrespectful to the DM who took the time to build stories around that character, and other players who interacted with that character... you can't just blow all that up on a whim, then get angry when you can't control what happens with that discarded character. Which btw, your new character would know absolutely nothing about, so there is some metagaming too, to top it off.
OP needs to find his spine and tell this player "hey look, if you ever do something like this again, you are done. Understand?"
It's just completely subjective. There's no need to come to agreement.
Some DMs are evidently fine with a PC crapping all over their game, themselves, and the rest of the party. Others would take offense.
Yes, my phrasing is incredibly biased and reveals how I feel about it. Yes, you might put it differently, because you might see the players actions as totally reasonable. It's fine, we don't need to agree :) To each their own.
Everyone should play with the kind of people they want to play with. And everyone should make sure the whole table is on the same page no later than Session Zero.
No one's saying the player isn't behaving unreasonably. Dude sounds like an absolute dick. What is being said is that this could have been handled differently-one way or another-with a more robust conversation.
These sorts of conversations don't end at session 0. They should continue whenever needed throughout the campaign.
Good Lord, are you an exhausting person. You absolutely do not need to break down everything I say in individual sentences to "get" me. No one is taking the Player's side against the DM... the mature people are saying that everyone involved should treat each other with respect, even if the Player is in the wrong and the DM made a perfectly reasonable response when caught off guard. If the Player can't play nice with the party or come to a satisfying compromise with the DM in regards to their abandoned character, then the DM shouldn't make the game worse for everyone else just satisfy this one disruptive player. But what we are saying is that they should talk it out. Please, please, just reply to the bolded statement. That's literally the only part of this statement that's important. You don't need to pick and choose individual sentences to pick apart and "win" the conversation.
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
Well, by that logic you can't also play more than one character and a player can't control an NPC, so you are contradicting yourself. But thanks for proving my point for me. ;)
Saying "Both parties should have a mature discussion about what happened" is not "clearly" taking the side of the player over the DM. I'm not even disagreeing that the player was being immature and over-reacted when the consequences of their actions entered the game itself. I'm not even saying that the DM was wrong for what they did... if anything, they were very understanding and supportive of their player, in spite of the massive challenge it presented them. I'm just saying that it would have gone easier if they had gotten everyone together to discuss this with the group and set some ground rules and, but since it's too late for that the best option is for everyone to come together later and discuss what happened. At that point whether they come up with a unique solution for their table, or if the DM lays down the law and makes clear that abandoned characters become NPCs and the player can either play along or quit... that's fine as well. But the conversation should happen.
I know you seem to think nobody reads anything, because, I assume, you believe your position is so obvious and logical that the only reason someone wouldn't reach the exact same conclusion as you must mean they didn't thoroughly read the same thing you did, but to avoid embarrassing yourself, please find a different argument. That's clearly not what's happening, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
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
I think the fact that one side of this is arguing "bro you can totally control like 5 characters at once" is pretty telling. DM acted reasonably, some people just are not into being reasonable.
I had a whole argument written up, but I realize that we're basically just talking in circles around each other. I apologize for inserting myself in this discussion and it's hard not to insert snark or digs, but the question seems to be answered enough for the OP to move forward and any more argument from me would just be me attempting to soothe my own ego. I will say that I disagree with you on broad themes and tone, but do agree on a lot of the specifics, and I'm sorry for pushing insults into my earlier posts.
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
I'm going to need to homebrew the special item "Jackson's Enthralling Popcorn".
Too much content for me to read and respond to meaningfully, so I won't jump in too deeply:
+1 for DMs controlling prematurely retired PCs by default, if necessary for the story.
+1 for a player being responsible for expressing their preferences thoughtfully.
+1 for a DM being considerate of their player's wishes.
The issue for me is that the player responded angrily. Transitions are often messy and everyone involved needs to be comfortable with improvising until they can discuss it calmly outside of the game.
I definitely could use that popcorn.
Also here for statblocks on that Mustard spirit. Public homebrew links anyone?
I think Memnosyne summation is the most productive take in the latter arc of this thread, capping the topic into lessons learned and set forth in like a DMG tip sidebar format. Only area I'd expand upon is the handling of "legacy" abandoned characters. I don't like the idea of a character a player "dropped" pulling focus for story too long into game. It literally privileges a "has been" figure in the game over the players. So I'd just say put some script doctoring to the original plot points and write the NPC out as expeditiously as possible. Let them exist as a point of contact / patron but I think there should be a divestment for the sake of the other players.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Overall my verdict would be that the player is completely out of line.
First of all you can't just retire a character without any notice. That is highly disrespectful to the DM who took the time to build stories around that character, and other players who interacted with that character... you can't just blow all that up on a whim, then get angry when you can't control what happens with that discarded character. Which btw, your new character would know absolutely nothing about, so there is some metagaming too, to top it off.
OP needs to find his spine and tell this player "hey look, if you ever do something like this again, you are done. Understand?"
It's just completely subjective. There's no need to come to agreement.
Some DMs are evidently fine with a PC crapping all over their game, themselves, and the rest of the party. Others would take offense.
Yes, my phrasing is incredibly biased and reveals how I feel about it. Yes, you might put it differently, because you might see the players actions as totally reasonable. It's fine, we don't need to agree :) To each their own.
Everyone should play with the kind of people they want to play with. And everyone should make sure the whole table is on the same page no later than Session Zero.
No one's saying the player isn't behaving unreasonably. Dude sounds like an absolute dick. What is being said is that this could have been handled differently-one way or another-with a more robust conversation.
These sorts of conversations don't end at session 0. They should continue whenever needed throughout the campaign.