Question for other DMs/gamers...

[Gerrinson]

I want to know if my judgement was too harsh last night.

Here's the situation: We have one guy in the group who's leans towards the "min/max " and "rules lawyer" stereotypes. Still, he's a solid gamer who shows up for every session and he roleplays well (only Evil characters, but still.)

Well, last night he explicitly said that he was standing 30' back from a trap that the group decided to trigger rather than disarm. The blast radius was 40' so, his character got caught in the blast, failed his save, and died.

The party has a single wish available, but they chose not to use it to restore him with it. Instead, the druid Reincarnated him. He wound up as human, which hurts his stats a little bit (he'll lose a couple of bonus spells) and he no longer has wings, so he can't fly. Does it suck? Yes. Can it be corrected in game with some effort on his part? Also yes.

The reincarnation marked the end of the session, so we left it at 'Take a week to get your thoughts/character sheet in order and we'll pick up from there next week.'

Just so you know the truly subjective elements, this player has, on several occasions, made a big deal about being able to take advantage of 'DM error.' I make mistakes, it happens, and I stand by my mistakes just as I stand by my rulings. When I say 'No' I mean 'No' and if I say 'Yes' by mistake, then it stands.

So, after the game, the player emailed the entire group stating '<Character> is too dignified to be reincarnated as a human, so the reincarnation failed because her soul refuses to suffer living in a human body.' He emailed me separately wanting to come back as a ghost that haunts the party and 'possesses' the other PCs bodies.

My reply to the group email was simply 'If that's the way you want it, so be it.' As far as I'm concerned, the character is dead and staying that way for choosing death over life. And I completely shot down coming back as a ghost that possesses the other character's bodies, too.

I've decided that I'm going to tell him his character is gone and I'll email him when I start a new campaign with new characters.

I think I made a solid decision, though there is a bit of me that wants to jump and down and taunt him about his 'player error'. So, am I being too harsh in flushing his character for choosing death over life?

[MaggieTheCat]

My husband and I both agree that you weren't too harsh. If, by staying in character, it meant that he had to stay dead, fine. He's staying in character, which is cool. It also means that he's out of the campaign until you find an opening to let a new character in. We usually let a player make a new character and get them introduced to the rest of the party within 1-2 sessions of when their old character died, but if that's just no feasible with your campaign -- or if the dude was being a jerk and you just don't want him in the rest of your campaign -- then telling him he can re-join after this campaign is perfectly reasonable.

My husband said he should just accept the reincarnation as a human and find a wizard who can cast Polymorph Any Object on him. Assuming his original form was humanoid and not an outsider (and outsiders can't be reincarnated anyway, unless you house-ruled that they could) he'd get his original form back. He might lose some special abilities that his original form had to start with, but it's better than being dead, isn't it?

[CoffeeMonkey]

If he's a jerk player that you want out of the game, then that's fine, and not harsh at all.

If not, what I don't understand is why he's not just rolling up a new character to take the place of the old. The ghost thing is rediculous and you rightly put the kibosh on it. And if he doesn't want to play his character as a human, ok fine. But there's a difference between character gone and player gone, and unless he's quitting/being booted, there's no reason for the player to stop playing just cuz the character died and isn't coming back.

[Broomjockey]

I'll email him when I start a new campaign with new characters.

This is the only part that's too harsh. Is there no way to work in a new character? Just lay some ground rules like "cannot be related to previous character" or something to prevent "Dead Character v 2.0" syndrome.

I'd say allowing a ghost is one thing. A ghost that can possess the NPCs would be excessive. Possessing PCs is unforgivable. It's bad enough when a DM railroads a character out of control of the player. Giving another player that ability is a recipe for a throwdown. Not to mention it'd be game breaking. "I possess the king, and order the army to do it."

[Gerrinson]

This is the only part that's too harsh. Is there no way to work in a new character? Just lay some ground rules like "cannot be related to previous character" or something to prevent "Dead Character v 2.0" syndrome.

Actually, the entire storyline behind this game is that all of the characters are a family - specifically brothers & sisters - so it is kind of hard to just say 'Oh, hey, here's your other brother Bob who was never mentioned and that none of you have ever met.' Even harder to do with the party in the middle of a massive underground dungeon created (and still occupied) by a lich where they're looking to retrieve an uber artifact for a besieged lord. This dungeon is big enough that they've leveled twice within it and probably will nab two more levels (or 1 and 3/4, anyway) before they finish.

So introducing a character is a wee bit more difficult than 'Let's go back to town and find someone in the tavern/adventurer's guild/church/etc.' Of course it can be done, but it involves a considerable amount of work on my part.

The more I think about it, the more I am irked by the fact that he shot down his own reincarnation prior to running the ghost thing by me. The possessing people thing is something he wrote up a few minutes after the group email. Sort of like he was trying to back me into a corner where I have to agree with him in order to keep him (as a player) in the game.

I haven't emailed to tell him that he's out of the campaign (as of yet), but I did get another email from him covering several judgements I made in the game where he believes I was in 'error' and should retcon events. Here's one of his points that I enjoyed:

When <other player's character> put her hand into a portal that showed only 'an empty void' and drew back nothing but a bloody stump you didn't allow a Fort save to keep her hand. Frankly, I think this is tyrannical and my past gaming groups wouldn't have allowed it. I think that you should give <other player> the chance to roll a save and get her hand back so she can use her Oathbow again.

The player who's character was actually involved pulled his hand into his sleeve, had a good laugh, and played one handed (both in game and out) for the rest of the session. He also mentioned that his character had learned a valuable lesson about reaching into a portal that was described thusly:

You see a portal standing in the center of the room. The portal seems to contain an inky black void so dark that it appears to absorb light and seems akin to peering into an infinite abyss. After a moment of looking at it you turn away, your soul chilled by this brush with the essence of nothingness.

I guess I prefer players who are willing to roll with the punches rather than emailing to tell me why I was wrong and which events should be retconned and in what manner. In fact, not receiving another one of the rules emails seems like it might be reason enough for a disinvitation to the campaign. Possibly with a less rude explanation as to why. Perhaps some out of game character growth might ensue?

I guess when all is said and done, the game will be more fun without him. That's kind of sad. The last player I dropped was playing ADD&D and he pissed off everybody to the point where he wasn't even welcome to hang out when we weren't playing games.

[Stormraven]

Playing Tomb of Horrors, I see.

No, I don't think you were too harsh at all. The player's made a choice, and you're simply telling him to abide by the consequences of that choice.

On the other hand, if you are playing Tomb, and half the party isn't dead by now, you're probably being a little too soft.

[Broomjockey]

Actually, the entire storyline behind this game is that all of the characters are a family - specifically brothers & sisters - so it is kind of hard to just say 'Oh, hey, here's your other brother Bob who was never mentioned and that none of you have ever met.' Even harder to do with the party in the middle of a massive underground dungeon created (and still occupied) by a lich where they're looking to retrieve an uber artifact for a besieged lord. This dungeon is big enough that they've leveled twice within it and probably will nab two more levels (or 1 and 3/4, anyway) before they finish.


<snip>

I guess when all is said and done, the game will be more fun without him.

Well, that situation's a bit different then, so yeah, kicking him to the curb is justified, especially in light of the second bit there.

I played with a rules-lawyering min/maxer for a while, and while he was decent to play with, as another player I was doing what I could to say "dude, that's wrong." That's probably not a good thing for group cohesion.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

Possessing PCs is unforgivable. It's bad enough when a DM railroads a character out of control of the player. Giving another player that ability is a recipe for a throwdown. Not to mention it'd be game breaking. "I possess the king, and order the army to do it."

This was my first thought... A character being able to take possession of the other characters is a recipe for disaster.

Having the player as a ghost who can communicate with the others is an interesting idea, though... Of course, my evil side would make the character unable to communicate with the rest of the party verbally. Just like in the Star Wars RPG, you could play as Wookies or R2 units but had to communicate the same way (RRAAAAAGH or 'bleep-bloop-bleep').

Or, allow the character as a ghost, his way... but each session there's a Willpower test to stop from 'going into the light' (made harder each time, of course).

[Gerrinson]

Or, allow the character as a ghost, his way... but each session there's a Willpower test to stop from 'going into the light' (made harder each time, of course).

My problem with his way is that it involves taking control of the other PCs. There's no way to justify that in even the short term unless, say, one of the players was taking a long leave of absence.

And he's only interested in taking over the big fighter, so he can combine the fighter's physical stats with his cleric abilities.

Playing Tomb of Horrors, I see.

Actually, no. This is a homebrew dungeon. And I probably am being a bit soft on them.

[Broomjockey]

And he's only interested in taking over the big fighter, so he can combine the fighter's physical stats with his cleric abilities.

Okay, you want to be evil? Let him. Only he turns himself on his first Turning attempt, and his God refuses to grant more spells due to the perversion of subverting another's will (I'm assuming Good-aligned). And then the God sends astral minions to drag his soul to whichever Hell he's destined for.

[Gerrinson]

Okay, you want to be evil? Let him. Only he turns himself on his first Turning attempt, and his God refuses to grant more spells due to the perversion of subverting another's will (I'm assuming Good-aligned). And then the God sends astral minions to drag his soul to whichever Hell he's destined for.

The only problem here is that would be evil of me not only in game (which is fine by me ) but also out of game. He and I both drive 45 minutes, each way, to play. He drives south and I drive north. The other players all live within 5-10 minutes of the store where we play which conveniently sits just about dead center between our respective homes.

If he lived closer, that would be fine. But I'd feel like a total douche to make him drive 45 minutes, play for all of about 10 minutes (as the next chamber will be a battle and there'd definitely be some turning), and then drop him from the game and make him drive 45 minutes back home.

There's rude and then there's RUDE. I like to kid myself by thinking I'm not that bad.


Yet.

[Broomjockey]

There's rude and then there's RUDE. I like to kid myself by thinking I'm not that bad.


Yet.

Well, keep in mind, I'm evil. I even said it was evil. Evil involves inconveniencing people for your own pleasure. If you need a means to justify it, then you can cast it as a learning experience for him. If he's playing a cleric, then he needs to remember the tenets of his faith, and alignment. They're part of the rules too, after all.

However, this talk of min/maxing and clerics reminds me of the one time I tried my hand at min/maxing. Cleric with a vow of nonviolence, managed to get my diplomacy to +30 by level 3.

[Shards]

Unfortunately, he already stated that the guy ONLY plays evil characters.

See, that would be my 'kick to the curb' factor. Then again, I genuinely enjoy playing paladins, so I would have just smote him.

Anyhow, the way I figure it, he should be left out of the game, period, and if it would be more fun for your friends and you without him, then he shouldn't be invited to future games, either. It sucks, but it's really sounding like he brought it upon himself.

And this is coming from a powergamer. (I generally stop and make a new character if it becomes clear I'm breaking a game and screwing the difficulty curve, but I like working stats to my best advantage.)

[Broomjockey]

Unfortunately, he already stated that the guy ONLY plays evil characters.

Ah, I took it as he only roleplays evil characters well.

[AccountingDrone]

No, not too harsh, is there *anything* at all that would make him think he could be a ghost possessing other PCs in the rules? I really doubt it. Granted I have not played paper and dice RPGs since I started with computers back in the early 90s, but I do know a number of gamers and do chat with them...

I could see allowing him to occasionally possess an NPC, but not a pc.

Definitely make him wait out the rest of the scenario until the new one starts.