|
We have just finished up book one of the Jade Regent AP. One of our players left early on, so another player took over the ninja. I haven't been too happy with a player playing more than their own character, especially since they are very new to the game. During the last session, the player controlling the ninja and barbarian pulled a last minute cancelation. I'd made some indications that at the end of the book I didn't want to keep the ninja around, but I wasn't clear how. I tried texting the player of my plans, but his phone was off. When the Amatatsu seal was revealed, I had the ninja (who was not temporarily knocked out) flee with the seal. I had ruled that the ninja was a secret undercover agent of the Five Storms oni. They others ended up catching the ninja and killing her after the interrogation.
Now the player is irritated we killed of his other PC, especially while he wasn't there. Did I overstep in modifying the ninja (who didn't really have a backstory at all) and making her a traitor?
Well, it sort of depends on the context. If the ninja was clearly identified as an NPC that a player was controlling for the GM to be able to focus on gaming, then what you did was fine.
If, on the other hand, the player believed he was running two PLAYER CHARACTERS, then not so much. Since I don't know what expectations existed, it's impossible to say.
In general in a situation like this the ninja would likely have been identified as an NPC a player happened to be running. So most people will probably say 'you did fine'.
|
|
Well, it sort of depends on the context. If the ninja was clearly identified as an NPC that a player was controlling for the GM to be able to focus on gaming, then what you did was fine.
If, on the other hand, the player believed he was running two PLAYER CHARACTERS, then not so much. Since I don't know what expectations existed, it's impossible to say.
In general in a situation like this the ninja would likely have been identified as an NPC a player happened to be running. So most people will probably say 'you did fine'.
You have gotten to the core of the issue. For the most part, the player believes he took over the character and had two Player Characters. I fear I was not clear the ninja was an NPC controlled by him.
How many players are in your group?
Why did you let the one player play two characters?
I don't think it was a bad option to have taken. However, even if I could not tell the player ahead of game day that that was going to happen, I would have pulled them aside the day of and let them know how you felt (without revealing how you would do it) and given the player the choice on which character to keep. This way the player is not stunned at your actions, is happy they got to keep the character they liked better, and you are back to one character per player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice, for what it's worth, is to explain that you and the player viewed the character differently, apologize and move on.
It wasn't a PC after the other player had to leave and the barbarian's Player took it over. It is well within your right as the GM to do with that NPC as you see fit to drive your story. Unless the other player took the leadership feat and the Ninja was 2 levels below to become a cohort or you specifically stated that everyone at the table could run 2 PC's the barbarian's player is in the wrong. You don't have to explain your actions any further than that.
|
|
To clarify:
There are four players, and five characters. Very early on, a fifth player had played the ninja without creating any kind of backstory for it. I let one of the other players control the ninja, but I never made it clear whether the ninja was now an NPC or a PC.
I had expressed my displeasure at the fifth PC, and had discussed with the player about getting rid of the ninja at the end of the book, but never really followed up from it. After the cancel, I realized that having the ninja be a member of the Fove Storms could be a really useful plot device for explaining more of the situation and making them feel more threatened. I told the player of these plans, but he never received the. With the lack of a backstory, I felt I had the right to create it to make it fit the story.
It may have been easier to have the character leave when the player did but the woulda coulda shouldas are always 20/20.
I understood that from your first post, but when a player leaves the table and a PC is left behind it automatically becomes an NPC, especially if that other person didn't create any kind of backstory. As the GM, it's up to YOU what YOU want to do with that remaining orphaned PC. You can say that you are giving it to someone to play TWO PCs with, you can say that someone can run it/roll for it, but you are the one who decides what kind of information it knows (role-plays for it), you can remove levels and give it out as a cohort, you can run it as a full-fledged GMPC, or you can kill it off. It really doesn't matter to me (when I play) what the GM decides to do with that orphaned PC. Just because you didn't specify what you were going to do with this particular orphaned PC doesn't mean that the player who was running it automatically gets to keep it, that is up to YOU to decide what to do at your table.
I'd talk to the player in a one-on-one conversation and explain your reasons, but do not retcon it to give it back to them. If they want to run a second PC tell them to take the Leadership feat and run one at that time. I understand that they are kind of new to the game, but players don't always get what they want and if the orphaned PC dying off or being a traitor helps drive your story to become even more epic that player should understand.
Well that may be your view, ub3r. But if the GM then tells another player to "take over the PC" or something, then yes, that player might very well be under the impression it's now his PC.
I mean, honestly why wouldn't he think that.
And to be perfectly honest, if I would have been that player, I would be quite peeved too.
I think you were within your rights, but there was clearly some miscommunication. Whether that was your fault or the player's is kind of beside the point. Along the lines of what AD said, I would acknowledge the player's frustration, apologize to the extent you could have communicated your plans more clearly, and move on.
In addition, you could suggest to the player that, if he is bored with his current character, he could retire it in Kalsgaard and introduce a new character... perhaps a ninja. Yes, it's obviously a tad contrived, but so the introduction of virtually any other replacement character.