So, I am playing a D&D session for the last year or so. There are only 4 players and me as GM. We're in a homebrew world and really most things are allowed, race, feats whatever. The only limitation is that I don't allow spells such as Revivify or (True)Resurrection. Basically, you can't revive someone to their body via a spell effect. I do allow stuff like raise dead or reanimate as that's not bring the players character back, just their body. There are ways to resurrect players in the world via another game mechanic. This was also discussed and made very clear in session 0.
Here is the problem, we're adults and life happens, our fourth player is stepping away for an extended period because of life. Another friend of ours has showed interest in wanting to play, so I invited them. I gave them a quick rundown of the story so far and the world, but I failed to mention anything about the resurrection rule. This past weekend they showed me the character they built, and I when I was reviewing it, I saw they had revivify as a spell. So, I simply replied and said. "Hey you can't have revivify as a spell, it doesn't exist in my world. There are ways to revive someone, but not via spell mechanics." The player got very upset with me and then told me how being revived was important to their characters backstory and why they focused on a heavy healing build. I informed them that they could still be revived, just not via a spell like revivify.
We don't play for another 2 weeks, so they have plenty of time to adjust their character or even make a new one. However, I am not even sure I still want to play with them. I get I screwed up and forgot to inform them of the revivify rule before asking them to build their character, but this is why I wanted to review their character before they joined, incase I missed anything and so I could work their character into the world. I just not sure I want a player that is going to get so upset when I rule something that might not be rules as written. It just gives me a bad vibe, but I'd hate to exclude them as well. I haven't heard from them in the last two days, and plan to reach out tomorrow or the next day, but figured I should ask for advice before doing so.
Edit: To clarify the bolded and italics sentence above, I meant to imply I have messaged them the last two days and haven't heard back, but wanted to get feedback on what I should do before attempting to reach out again. That is why I said I would be waiting until tomorrow or the next day. Sorry for the confusion.
PS: I get banning spells is not popular and most people frown upon it. However to be very clear, with the initial party this was brought up before the game started, they were all made aware of it, and were told how they would be able to revive characters via another in game mechanic.
It sounds like you didn't give the player a full run-down. When the mistake was pointed out, the player just explained why they had made the choice. You explained that it could still work, just not the way they had originally envisioned. Everything should be fine after that.
I don't see the problem here that hasn't already been resolved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I think this is a fairly reasonable homerule - these spells can reduce death as a consequence (both for players and NPCs) which can cause all kinds of problems. I personally homebrew restrictions on these kinds of spells (not outright bans, but greater limitations on their usage).
It sounds like they have two problems with your ban - that it interferes with their backstory and that it reduces their efficacy as a healer. Both of those should be easy problems to solve.
For the first, you just need to be clear that, while players might not be able to access revivify and similar spells, that doesn’t mean his character could not have been brought back from the dead. It just means he was brought back by a god or some currently unknown magic source. Instead of saying “you could not have been revivified”, tell him “your backstory works, but it was truly a miracle, not the application of relatively common magic.”
For healing, I would stress that removing revivify actually increases his need as a healer. Revivify is a safety net - if is something a healer can use after they failed at their job. Removing revivify does not make them less of a healer - it just removes a crutch and allows them to focus more on the healing side of things.
I apologize, I've left out details. I will attempt to clear this up. This player has been complaining to the other players about me "banning" these spells for the last 2 days and is not responding to me specifically.
I could see how my wording implied that neither of us have attempted to make contact.
"I haven't heard from them in the last two days, and plan to reach out tomorrow or the next day"
But what I meant to imply was that I have messaged them the last two days and haven't heard back, but wanted to get feedback on what I should do before attempting to reach out again. Hence why I said I would be waiting until tomorrow or the next day.
If it was dead silence and neither of us were trying to reach out and if they weren't telling the other players that I am a bad GM for banning specific spells, then I wouldn't be so worried. I do apologize for the confusion in my wording though. I hope this clears it up.
This player has been complaining to the other players about me "banning" these spells for the last 2 days and is not responding to me specifically.
With the caveat we are only getting your side of the story and reality could be different, based upon this one new fact I would kick the person out of the party.
Defusing to engage with you and instead trying to drum up support from your other players is problematic behaviour - and is a massive red flag on how they might act throughout the campaign. Someone who is causing problems even before the campaign starts is all but certain to continue exhibiting those same behaviours throughout the entire campaign. You don’t want that and, if your players are telling you “hey, this guy keeps going behind your back”, your players probably do not want it either.
Start by talking with your players - lead with something like “Hey, I know the new player has been upset about the revivify ban. Here is why I banned it, [explain your reasoning]. I have tried to reach out to him a couple times to try and resolve this issue, but he has been non responsive. I am concerned he is trying to stir up drama instead of having a conversation with me, and I am inclined to disinvite him from the group. Thoughts?”
That puts you in control of the narrative of why you are dismissing the person - it gives you a chance to explain your decision regarding the spells as well as why you do not want to play with the person. Additionally, it makes others feel like you are listening to their thoughts as well.
What you do next will depend on how your players respond, but, if you have good players, they should be inclined to agree with you. If they do not, you can politely explain why you are still going to kick out the new player.
When you do approach the new player, keep it simple. “After conferring with the rest of the group, we do not think you are a good fit for our party.” He’ll be angry and probably rant and rave at you - don’t bother engaging. He is not entitled to your specific reasons as to why he is out of the group - and you do not want to be baited into saying something which the other player might take out of context and try to use to destroy your reputation with your other players.
This player has been complaining to the other players about me "banning" these spells for the last 2 days and is not responding to me specifically.
With the caveat we are only getting your side of the story and reality could be different, based upon this one new fact I would kick the person out of the party.
Defusing to engage with you and instead trying to drum up support from your other players is problematic behaviour - and is a massive red flag on how they might act throughout the campaign. Someone who is causing problems even before the campaign starts is all but certain to continue exhibiting those same behaviours throughout the entire campaign. You don’t want that and, if your players are telling you “hey, this guy keeps going behind your back”, your players probably do not want it either.
Start by talking with your players - lead with something like “Hey, I know the new player has been upset about the revivify ban. Here is why I banned it, [explain your reasoning]. I have tried to reach out to him a couple times to try and resolve this issue, but he has been non responsive. I am concerned he is trying to stir up drama instead of having a conversation with me, and I am inclined to disinvite him from the group. Thoughts?”
That puts you in control of the narrative of why you are dismissing the person - it gives you a chance to explain your decision regarding the spells as well as why you do not want to play with the person. Additionally, it makes others feel like you are listening to their thoughts as well.
What you do next will depend on how your players respond, but, if you have good players, they should be inclined to agree with you. If they do not, you can politely explain why you are still going to kick out the new player.
When you do approach the new player, keep it simple. “After conferring with the rest of the group, we do not think you are a good fit for our party.” He’ll be angry and probably rant and rave at you - don’t bother engaging. He is not entitled to your specific reasons as to why he is out of the group - and you do not want to be baited into saying something which the other player might take out of context and try to use to destroy your reputation with your other players.
I'd like to thank you for your response. So I got the other players together and we started to talk. And before I could even really suggest ways to go about including this player or discussing what we should do, two of the three basically just said that they didn't want to play with them. Our third friend is very quite and didn't really say anything, when I asked her directly, she basically said, she doesn't mind either way, but feels like he has "main character syndrome".
Honestly that was enough for me, I really don't mind if our friend dislikes that I uninvite them. The rest of us have played together for a little over a year and all get along really well. They way I see it, they have more a say in who we should play with then I do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I am playing a D&D session for the last year or so. There are only 4 players and me as GM. We're in a homebrew world and really most things are allowed, race, feats whatever. The only limitation is that I don't allow spells such as Revivify or (True)Resurrection. Basically, you can't revive someone to their body via a spell effect. I do allow stuff like raise dead or reanimate as that's not bring the players character back, just their body. There are ways to resurrect players in the world via another game mechanic. This was also discussed and made very clear in session 0.
Here is the problem, we're adults and life happens, our fourth player is stepping away for an extended period because of life. Another friend of ours has showed interest in wanting to play, so I invited them. I gave them a quick rundown of the story so far and the world, but I failed to mention anything about the resurrection rule. This past weekend they showed me the character they built, and I when I was reviewing it, I saw they had revivify as a spell. So, I simply replied and said. "Hey you can't have revivify as a spell, it doesn't exist in my world. There are ways to revive someone, but not via spell mechanics." The player got very upset with me and then told me how being revived was important to their characters backstory and why they focused on a heavy healing build. I informed them that they could still be revived, just not via a spell like revivify.
We don't play for another 2 weeks, so they have plenty of time to adjust their character or even make a new one. However, I am not even sure I still want to play with them. I get I screwed up and forgot to inform them of the revivify rule before asking them to build their character, but this is why I wanted to review their character before they joined, incase I missed anything and so I could work their character into the world. I just not sure I want a player that is going to get so upset when I rule something that might not be rules as written. It just gives me a bad vibe, but I'd hate to exclude them as well. I haven't heard from them in the last two days, and plan to reach out tomorrow or the next day, but figured I should ask for advice before doing so.
Edit: To clarify the bolded and italics sentence above, I meant to imply I have messaged them the last two days and haven't heard back, but wanted to get feedback on what I should do before attempting to reach out again. That is why I said I would be waiting until tomorrow or the next day. Sorry for the confusion.
PS: I get banning spells is not popular and most people frown upon it. However to be very clear, with the initial party this was brought up before the game started, they were all made aware of it, and were told how they would be able to revive characters via another in game mechanic.
I think you are blowing this up more than it is.
It sounds like you didn't give the player a full run-down. When the mistake was pointed out, the player just explained why they had made the choice. You explained that it could still work, just not the way they had originally envisioned. Everything should be fine after that.
I don't see the problem here that hasn't already been resolved.
I think this is a fairly reasonable homerule - these spells can reduce death as a consequence (both for players and NPCs) which can cause all kinds of problems. I personally homebrew restrictions on these kinds of spells (not outright bans, but greater limitations on their usage).
It sounds like they have two problems with your ban - that it interferes with their backstory and that it reduces their efficacy as a healer. Both of those should be easy problems to solve.
For the first, you just need to be clear that, while players might not be able to access revivify and similar spells, that doesn’t mean his character could not have been brought back from the dead. It just means he was brought back by a god or some currently unknown magic source. Instead of saying “you could not have been revivified”, tell him “your backstory works, but it was truly a miracle, not the application of relatively common magic.”
For healing, I would stress that removing revivify actually increases his need as a healer. Revivify is a safety net - if is something a healer can use after they failed at their job. Removing revivify does not make them less of a healer - it just removes a crutch and allows them to focus more on the healing side of things.
I apologize, I've left out details. I will attempt to clear this up. This player has been complaining to the other players about me "banning" these spells for the last 2 days and is not responding to me specifically.
I could see how my wording implied that neither of us have attempted to make contact.
"I haven't heard from them in the last two days, and plan to reach out tomorrow or the next day"
But what I meant to imply was that I have messaged them the last two days and haven't heard back, but wanted to get feedback on what I should do before attempting to reach out again. Hence why I said I would be waiting until tomorrow or the next day.
If it was dead silence and neither of us were trying to reach out and if they weren't telling the other players that I am a bad GM for banning specific spells, then I wouldn't be so worried. I do apologize for the confusion in my wording though. I hope this clears it up.
With the caveat we are only getting your side of the story and reality could be different, based upon this one new fact I would kick the person out of the party.
Defusing to engage with you and instead trying to drum up support from your other players is problematic behaviour - and is a massive red flag on how they might act throughout the campaign. Someone who is causing problems even before the campaign starts is all but certain to continue exhibiting those same behaviours throughout the entire campaign. You don’t want that and, if your players are telling you “hey, this guy keeps going behind your back”, your players probably do not want it either.
Start by talking with your players - lead with something like “Hey, I know the new player has been upset about the revivify ban. Here is why I banned it, [explain your reasoning]. I have tried to reach out to him a couple times to try and resolve this issue, but he has been non responsive. I am concerned he is trying to stir up drama instead of having a conversation with me, and I am inclined to disinvite him from the group. Thoughts?”
That puts you in control of the narrative of why you are dismissing the person - it gives you a chance to explain your decision regarding the spells as well as why you do not want to play with the person. Additionally, it makes others feel like you are listening to their thoughts as well.
What you do next will depend on how your players respond, but, if you have good players, they should be inclined to agree with you. If they do not, you can politely explain why you are still going to kick out the new player.
When you do approach the new player, keep it simple. “After conferring with the rest of the group, we do not think you are a good fit for our party.” He’ll be angry and probably rant and rave at you - don’t bother engaging. He is not entitled to your specific reasons as to why he is out of the group - and you do not want to be baited into saying something which the other player might take out of context and try to use to destroy your reputation with your other players.
I'd like to thank you for your response. So I got the other players together and we started to talk. And before I could even really suggest ways to go about including this player or discussing what we should do, two of the three basically just said that they didn't want to play with them. Our third friend is very quite and didn't really say anything, when I asked her directly, she basically said, she doesn't mind either way, but feels like he has "main character syndrome".
Honestly that was enough for me, I really don't mind if our friend dislikes that I uninvite them. The rest of us have played together for a little over a year and all get along really well. They way I see it, they have more a say in who we should play with then I do.