Got about halfway through the thread.
You had a character trying to die, and instead goes AWOL from your plan for a missed session?
I recently had a character, who I had plans for several levels, die in a session I missed. And our group has a strong reluctance to put non-present chars in mortal danger.
Sure, it is a bummer, but I realize that sometimes bad stuff happens to your character. [S&S: Bonewrack Isle]
I chose to create a new character, and have had fun since.
/cevah, successor to the above character
|
I prefer the limbo approach to absent PCs or some other suitably thematic explanation!... Leads to far fewer arguments!
We prefer, for verisimilitude, and because it is funny, that one is watching the horses/camels/beasts of burden. The only thing that can affect your character while you aren't there is a TPK. But a TPK is so unlikely to occur that if it does happen we are usually reimagining the campaign.
Acting out of character may not be a negative consequence for the character, but it can certainly be a negative consequence for a player who is heavily invested in that character's story. While trashing the campaign out of spite would definitely be overreacting, I can definitely understand why OP is upset.
And as a GM, if I knew I had planned a significant character moment for a player who was going to be absent (and for an understandable reason) I would try to put a little effort into revising my plan to account for the absence. Ideally it would be possible to postpone the duel, but if not, was there any way that the fight could have been resolved without either killing OP's character or having him act out of character?
Would it have been plausible for the NPC to incapacitate OP's character without killing him (leaving your character pissed and looking for a rematch)? For the NPC to retreat even if OP's character was still keen to fight to the death? For some third party to intervene in such a way that OP's character might grudgingly accept the need to "finish this later"?
They are fair questions, however, I think the point is, this tavern brawl was not significant, just a throwaway line to say what the character has been doing for the last few days.
It also doesn't look like the player is heavily invested in the character... As he is trying to kill him off.
It is very plausible for two people to bludgeon themselves to the brink of unconsciousness and be unable to continue, I have seen it in many films. The character is seeking a worhy death, why would he be pissed someone who get very very close. Even if he is pissed who cares - he's a fictional character made up by the OP. You choose the way you play your character.
Acting out of character may not be a negative consequence for the character, but it can certainly be a negative consequence for a player who is heavily invested in that character's story. While trashing the campaign out of spite would definitely be overreacting, I can definitely understand why OP is upset.
And as a GM, if I knew I had planned a significant character moment for a player who was going to be absent (and for an understandable reason) I would try to put a little effort into revising my plan to account for the absence. Ideally it would be possible to postpone the duel, but if not, was there any way that the fight could have been resolved without either killing OP's character or having him act out of character?
Would it have been plausible for the NPC to incapacitate OP's character without killing him (leaving your character pissed and looking for a rematch)? For the NPC to retreat even if OP's character was still keen to fight to the death? For some third party to intervene in such a way that OP's character might grudgingly accept the need to "finish this later"?
They are fair questions, however, I think the point is, this tavern brawl was not significant, just a throwaway line to say what the character has been doing for the last few days.
It also doesn't look like the player is heavily invested in the character... As he is trying to kill him off.
It is very plausible for two people to bludgeon themselves to the brink of unconsciousness and be unable to continue, I have seen it in many films. The character is seeking a worhy death, why would he be pissed someone who get very very close. Even if he is pissed who cares - he's a fictional character made up by the OP. You choose the way you play your character.
Significance is in the eye of the beholder.
If it has no impact on the session, has no lasting effect, in game or out of game, and occurred to a character that the player is actively trying to kill off? Then yes, as a reasonable objective outsider who is not emotionally involved with the individuals concerned I can say in my opinion it is insignificant.
You weren't there for the session. GM's who run their game with consistency simply can't make the character vanish for the session. So it was either tell everyone else they can't play because you didn't make it. Or deal with it somehow.
As a GM, I rarely have trouble finding a reason for a character to be absent.
They could be foraging for supplies, scouting ahead, acting as vanguard, following the tracks of bandits who attacked in the night, attacked by a strange fey and put into a magical slumber, contracting a disease from a rusty nail they stepped on, taking care of an item of personal significance, afflicted by a Feeblemind, just put into the background as the rest of the party works around them, or even not worry why they aren't around because they're doing something else of particular import - no one says anything if you don't see a character on an ensemble TV show for an episode.
I prefer the limbo approach to absent PCs or some other suitably thematic explanation!... Leads to far fewer arguments!We prefer, for verisimilitude, and because it is funny, that one is watching the horses/camels/beasts of burden. The only thing that can affect your character while you aren't there is a TPK. But a TPK is so unlikely to occur that if it does happen we are usually reimagining the campaign.
I find that having an absent character during a TPK is actually a good thing - your character who was back on vanguard duty realizes that the party has taken too long to return so he/she gathers a rescue team to rescue the original party and then take over their adventure. Campaign continues!
You're mad you didn't die? Next time some horrible spell targets you choose to fail the save, you'll probably die.
|
They are fair questions, however, I think the point is, this tavern brawl was not significant, just a throwaway line to say what the character has been doing for the last few days.
If it's just a throwaway, then why is the GM unwilling to retcon it when it's clear that the player considers it a significant departure from character?
It also doesn't look like the player is heavily invested in the character... As he is trying to kill him off.
You can be heavily invested in a character's story without being heavily invested in a character's well-being. I've seen players do suicidal things with their characters because it is in character - I've had at least one friend say they'd rather the character die than do something out of character.
It is very plausible for two people to bludgeon themselves to the brink of unconsciousness and be unable to continue, I have seen it in many films. The character is seeking a worthy death, why would he be pissed someone who get very very close. Even if he is pissed who cares - he's a fictional character made up by the OP. You choose the way you play your character.
Yes, you choose the way you play your character. The OP chooses to play a character who would be pissed after fighting to a draw because of the character's frustration at coming very close to getting the death he wants, but not actually getting it. The OP is frustrated because he feels the GM has not respected his very clearly stated preference about how his character is played.
If your choosing to play your character in a social game... May be don't choose to play a character that gets pee'd off about a lot of things. Maybe getting pee'd off isn't a quality that should be encouraged in gameplay.
I mean, we all like a bit of berserker rage in combat. But if that rage is because another player or NPC called the character by his first name then maybe something should be toned down. Similarly here -
"you kidnapped my sister! You'll pay for this AAaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh"
As opposed to
"You didn't kill me, it's not fair! Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh"
I would say the biggest offense here is, that for some reason the GM played the character despite previously absent PCs have not gotten such treatment.
Yeah, that's a bit of a red flag for me.
You have a character that is trying to die? That makes it hard on any game for both the GM and other players. This just screams problem, really the GM has minimal options. With the attitude you seem to have towards him, would it have been better if he just killed your character when you were not there? Was that NPC needed for the plot to evolve? You have issues with how the character was Roleplayed, but you were not there, without a "limbo", someone has to make that call. Now if he had your paladin murder a group of children for J-walking, then I might have an issue. I would suggest retiring that character or have it get over the death wish concept, it is bound to hurt the party as is.
I have to disagree with this. I've run characters that wanted to die before. Dwarf slayers for those familiar with the concept. Playing such a character is the same challenge as playing a paladin.
You have your code, and your goal...you just have to make sure that you don't force the group to follow it. The trick for a suicidal character is the need to die an honorable death, the desire to be remembered, and to be selfless.
Why is this important?
(1) The honorable death means that you can't do something stupid to die. You have to die with honor. If you get all your friends killed you died a selfish death, not an honorable one.
(2) You want to be remembered. This is the second trick to playing a suicidal character. Not only do you need someone around to witness your death, but you have to make sure that your death was worth remembering. Charging into a group of goblins? That's...well, something. Sure. Jumping onto the back of a dragon, plunging your axe into the back of its head, and riding the corpse down the cliff onto a regiment of orcs? Yeah, that's pretty damn cool.
(3) Being selfless. You are going to die, you know it. So put your companions over yourself. Splitting the loot? Only take what is needed and let them have the rest. A dead man walking doesn't need to save. Big...
The dwarf slayer comment is moot because it's extremely specific to a certain type of character: yes they want to die... but fighting the most epically big and powerful monster out there!
AND their ethics command them to bring said monster with them ("Pave the road to the iron halls of the ancestors with your enemy bones" - Grimnir) and to give everything they've got in doing so.Basically in the end a slayer may want to die but is very selective about the way this should happen and won't back down an inch to allow himself to die (let alone be killed by dishonorable means like poison or the tip of an arrowhead shot from 200 feet away...).
Also Slayers are still dwarves and may still be as greedy or greedier than normal dwarves. So they won't let others have their share of the loot, although they might spend most (or all of it) buying booze. What they won't do is wearing armor, besides that they are outcasts from "proper" dwarven society but aside from antisocial tendencies they don't necessarily lose anything that makes themselves dwarves
EDIT:
Here's an ESSAY on the nature of the slayer cult by none other than the esteemed Wilhelm of Praag (aka William King, Gotrek and Felix's creator)