One of my players wants his character to break off from the party because of character disputes and pursue his own goal. He has an evil sentient sword that he wants to quest to try and somehow turn it into a force for good. The rest of the party wants to destroy it before it corrupts him.
With his character gone, he will then introduce a new character that fits better with the party.
This sounds fine to me.
But then I thought about it: doing miscellaneous activities during downtime, "off screen," is one thing, but shouldn't something that is basically an adventure in its own right be carried out in play?
Or is it normal to just have that happen in the background? It seems like a waste to have it just happen as a handwave during downtime, though it would certainly take a while in game-time.
How would you guys handle it?
If the player split the character from the group and abandons it then it becomes an NPC and does stuff in the background or out of sight.
Downtime is for non-adventuring stuff. Resting, recouperating, training, family, etc. Background stuff usually.
Now if the group had split up then youd have to decide what to do. But since you allowed the player to essentially NPC their character thats that. At no point give them back a leveled up character. NO.
Think on what when on up to the point the character stopped adventuring as a PC and became an NPC. Keep in mind that if they went off adventuring on their own then they may likely die ASAP. So they may join some other adventuring group. Or they may stagnate and never accomplish anything.
But overall do not allow it to be a free level up button that the player can get the character back now all buffed and equipped. NO. But assuming the character succombs then the party may run into them as a villain or monster later. Or they might show up as a friendly NPC. But not under the players command.
Think of it as akin to various other things in RPGs that may turn a PC into an NPC.
Well, I should stress that, right now, I allow new characters to come in at the same experience level as the player's older character.
So if a new character comes in at level 5 (since the current one is at 5), adventures for a while and becomes level 8... then the player wants to bring back their old character... is that character coming back at level 8 that different from them just making a brand new character at level 8?
That part I don't have a problem with, per se. The part about undertaking a massive feat like turning the evil sword to good though is an added complication.
Good question.
In that case its up to you to decide what happens to the sidelined character in the intervening time.
Think on how hard it is to purify the sword. Will it cost gold? Will special priests be needed? What is the sword doing this whole time? How long does the character have before they turn and are lost?
Going off on your own without the backup of the rest of the group is pretty much begging for something to go very wrong. Or at the very least the task becomes much harder for the character if they arent well off in funds.
It could end as simple as someone flat out tells the character "cant be done" and offers a Remove Curse or equivalent so they can be rid of it. Or maybe they saw their error and somehow destroyed it or at least entombed it someplace remote.
I run things so differently that my advice probably wouldn't apply directly, but it might be interesting or help somehow, so:
* I have the world situations and player choices determine what is played out or not, not vice versa.
* So "down time" is when the PCs are spending blocks of time doing things that no one wants to play out in detail.
* "Down time" can also be different per PC. They don't all have to be adventuring or not adventuring at the same time.
* Players can also switch which characters they play.
* Group attendance is convenient and splitting can cause some real-life practical issues, but ideally splitting is allowed especially when it makes sense.
* PCs in practice very often do have different and conflicting interests including when they are adventuring or not.
* When PCs are splitting to do their own things on their own initiative that make sense and aren't aligned or even about the same task, and may even be in conflict, usually I take this as a great and interesting thing, usually more than worth its weight in waiting players.
* To limit the weight in waiting players, we take breaks, schedule split sessions, alternate who's with the GM, and/or have the players whose PCs aren't present to the current action play other characters (characters who are usually NPCs).
* PCs who become adversaries or grey in relation to the party and join new allies can be very interesting.
* Players who become adversaries can be very interesting.
The whole situation with character power levels from experience is a whole other subject. I think it calls for stepping back and looking at how much power/ability is gained at what rate and what that implies for the game world. In games like D&D, that seems to mean that somehow the PCs are blessed with an extraordinary power to gain ability by adventuring, that most of the rest of the world doesn't share. If so, then letting players swap PCs in and out introduces issues about which characters get to level up to keep pace with the party and how many characters the players can play and are they taking weird advantage of that. I don't GM D&D but if I did, I would probably make up an unconventional system for character improvement. I am pretty sure I would tend not to allow players to replace their PCs with equally-powerful characters, since it seems to me like one of the main attractions of D&D that it's about keeping characters alive against bad odds so you those who manage that can get the rewards of success, and those rewards tend to be the quirky and random stuff they happen to get, so even retiring a character and generating a new one would be a huge giveaway with no fun game history attached, as well as not very fair to players who survived and have only the things they got in play.
Also, if a PC does retire to go try to convert a magic sword against the wishes of the party, that sounds like an interesting thread to develop, even as an NPC thing. Surely the players will wonder what the outcome was and what that character and sword are up to.
A basic question to ask yourself: if a player brought a different character of appropriate level to every session, would you mind? Here's a another question: If a character earned a magic item and the player brought in a different character the next time, does the new character still get the magic item?
If those situations are a problem, you need more tight guidelines for how to replace one character with another.
If that isn't a problem, then the player can bring the character back later and write some fiction regarding what the character did on side adventures. The key there is that he couldn't add in details that gave him special powers or magic items "earned" while away.
I think that the key is to let everyone have fun, and if one character doesn't fit the goals of the party then allowing a character switch seems like a fine idea.
A basic question to ask yourself: if a player brought a different character of appropriate level to every session, would you mind? Here's a another question: If a character earned a magic item and the player brought in a different character the next time, does the new character still get the magic item?
If those situations are a problem, you need more tight guidelines for how to replace one character with another.
If that isn't a problem, then the player can bring the character back later and write some fiction regarding what the character did on side adventures. The key there is that he couldn't add in details that gave him special powers or magic items "earned" while away.
I think that the key is to let everyone have fun, and if one character doesn't fit the goals of the party then allowing a character switch seems like a fine idea.
Quote from: finarvyn;954561A basic question to ask yourself: if a player brought a different character of appropriate level to every session, would you mind? Here's a another question: If a character earned a magic item and the player brought in a different character the next time, does the new character still get the magic item?
If those situations are a problem, you need more tight guidelines for how to replace one character with another.
If that isn't a problem, then the player can bring the character back later and write some fiction regarding what the character did on side adventures. The key there is that he couldn't add in details that gave him special powers or magic items "earned" while away.
I think that the key is to let everyone have fun, and if one character doesn't fit the goals of the party then allowing a character switch seems like a fine idea.
I would be against someone switching EVERY session because of the disruption it would have on integrating them into the story. If it was every so often though it would be OK.
I wouldn't have a problem with them bringing a magic item if they are high enough level, but they wouldn't get that same item the previous character had.
> The key there is that he couldn't add in details that gave him special powers or magic items "earned" while away.
Wouldn't this mean he can't come back with the sword changed to good?
Ok, so the main question I would ask is if the player is retiring that character and making them an NPC or expects to be able to play that character again once the sword has been restored to "Good".
The reason why I ask is that it would be really fun if once the player has settled into his new character to have the party encounter the old character, fully corrupted by the sword, and having created a party of ruffians and evil-doers of his own, to oppose the main PC party.
The main reasoning here is that:
1. That's a badass backstory for a villain: i.e. he abandoned his friends to attempt a quest too hard to accomplish alone.
2. The old character (now evil) hates the PCs ("they're partially responsible for my evil corruption!").
3. The old character would especially resent and target his "replacement".
4. Since the player is essentially abandoning that character, the players have no say in whether or not this downtime quest has succeeded.
If you think it would go over well with your players, don't mention that old character directly. Maybe have them encounter victims of this evil party to build up a bit of reputation. Then when they meet this new evil-doer and realize it's the old character and his evil sword, it'll be epic, I assure you!
I'm with Nihilistic Mind.
However, I would not pre-determine the PC-turned-NPC's fate. Before each session, I would imagine some challenges that character is facing and assign some saving throws / challenge rolls / skill rolls / whatever. At the start of each session, I'd have that player make a couple blind D20 rolls - not knowing WTF is happening, just knowing shit is going down somewhere. Then I would compare them to see how the wandering character is doing in his lone quest.
The reason is I don't pre-ordained stuff in a campaign. I want to be surprised too.
I'm 100% sure he wants that guy back later with the sword.
Basically the problem for him is he wants to quest to purify the evil sword, but the party doesn't want to take the detour since it'll be a big quest by itself, and would prefer to get rid of the sword.
So rather than get rid of the sword he wants to have the character go off and purify the sword and come back later.
So the party wants to split. Always a pain in the ass to make happen at the table while keeping everyone engaged.
Sword Dude wants to quest to purify the sword, but the Party wants to destroy the evil sword.
What happens if Sword Dude goes off on his quest? Will the Party push the issue and still try to destroy the evil sword? Have they become foes?
If you want the sword quest to happen in actual play, then schedule a session with Sword Dude and anyone who wants to show. The other players will get NPCs who join Sword Dude on his quest and you hash out his success or failure and his return or not to the Party.
If you wanted to do the quest in the abstract, you could declare the quest takes 3 sessions of play. Then each session, the player makes a saving throw. Two successes and the sword is purified. Two failures and the PC fails and the sword stays evil. Three failures and big bad shit hits the fan. Three successes and the PC rocks the awesome. Meanwhile the player plays NPC XYZ during those weeks with the rest of the players.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;954345One of my players wants his character to break off from the party because of character disputes and pursue his own goal. He has an evil sentient sword that he wants to quest to try and somehow turn it into a force for good. The rest of the party wants to destroy it before it corrupts him.
With his character gone, he will then introduce a new character that fits better with the party.
This sounds fine to me.
But then I thought about it: doing miscellaneous activities during downtime, "off screen," is one thing, but shouldn't something that is basically an adventure in its own right be carried out in play?
Or is it normal to just have that happen in the background? It seems like a waste to have it just happen as a handwave during downtime, though it would certainly take a while in game-time.
How would you guys handle it?
I think there's a few ways you can handle this.
First, you could just say "ok, you go off, quest on your own, and come back with the sword fixed and no problems". But if you do that, be ready for everyone else to be able to expect to do similar things for the rest of the campaign.
Second, you could insist that it would need to be roleplayed. This is tricky, because it means either forcing everyone else to join on a quest they don't want to do, or playing with that one guy separate from the rest of the group (either during the usual gaming night, or separately or something).
In some games, you might be able to have everyone else play new/other characters. But your group might not go for that.
Third, you could try to abstract it. Make up some kind of set of rolls for the guy to make, saving throws for potential consequences, etc.
Or just have consequences happen, if you think that odds are him going off alone is going to end badly.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;954345One of my players wants his character to break off from the party because of character disputes and pursue his own goal. He has an evil sentient sword that he wants to quest to try and somehow turn it into a force for good. The rest of the party wants to destroy it before it corrupts him.
With his character gone, he will then introduce a new character that fits better with the party.
This sounds fine to me.
But then I thought about it: doing miscellaneous activities during downtime, "off screen," is one thing, but shouldn't something that is basically an adventure in its own right be carried out in play?
Or is it normal to just have that happen in the background? It seems like a waste to have it just happen as a handwave during downtime, though it would certainly take a while in game-time.
How would you guys handle it?
We've handled this sort of thing in PBEM format side games.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;954794I'm 100% sure he wants that guy back later with the sword.
Basically the problem for him is he wants to quest to purify the evil sword, but the party doesn't want to take the detour since it'll be a big quest by itself, and would prefer to get rid of the sword.
So rather than get rid of the sword he wants to have the character go off and purify the sword and come back later.
So, another thing to consider is this: what happens to the new PC once the sword guy comes back? Does he get kicked out of the group? Does he die at just the right time only to be replaced by Sword Guy character?
I like Spinachcat's suggestion of having the player roll a bunch of difficult rolls to determine degrees of success of this adventure. The issue with that is that if it fails, it won't be as much as a surprise if you bring Sword Guy as a villain later, which isn't a big deal, but, you know... Dramatic surprises can be fun!
Another way to handle it is to run an extra game, following that other character's adventures, probably as a one-shot solo adventure.
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;955345So, another thing to consider is this: what happens to the new PC once the sword guy comes back? Does he get kicked out of the group? Does he die at just the right time only to be replaced by Sword Guy character?
I like Spinachcat's suggestion of having the player roll a bunch of difficult rolls to determine degrees of success of this adventure. The issue with that is that if it fails, it won't be as much as a surprise if you bring Sword Guy as a villain later, which isn't a big deal, but, you know... Dramatic surprises can be fun!
Another way to handle it is to run an extra game, following that other character's adventures, probably as a one-shot solo adventure.
Yeah, if the player just wants to convert the sword and return as the same PC, you can just have the player play that out in whatever fashion using whatever media (notes, PBEM, private sessions, sidebar sessions, abstract rolls after listening to his plan). Meanwhile, that player can take a break and/or play as NPC allies and/or adversaries with the rest of the group. NPCs temporarily played by a player can return to NPC status when/if the PC returns. There is no need for weird consequences for NPCs the player runs in the meantime. Having an equivalent-power replacement PC materialize to replace a PC on a side-quest seems both very artificial and unfair, and also undermines the logic and cause & effect of the situation, which I think is the main thing that makes a game interesting anyway. i.e. It's about an interesting situation and seeing what choices you make and what that leads to, without weird gamey transformations of the universe to meet some weird artificial idea of what a party should be like in terms of number of members and their power levels - that's bizarre to me.
It sounds to me like the player enjoys his character and is doing a good job of playing IC, and the character's motivations don't jive well with the goals of the group. If that is the case, I would not hand wave the situation. I would do a side quest, probably 1 on 1, as a reward for playing his character well within the context of the campaign. I would make such a side quest was extremely challenging with the greatest risk being that the character is overthrown and corrupted by the sword (because that's his motivation), and I would, in some in game fashion, let him know what he is up against. If possible, the quest should be long (in game time) or distant from the main action of the party so as to remove the character from immediately influencing the group campaign - which should remain your primary focus. Regardless of the outcome of the side quest, I would certainly revisit the character later. He may be an NPC villain. He may come into save the day as a force of good as either PC or NPC. Or, you may never see him again but characters might feel the consequences of his actions in the world. I guess the main thing for me is that the campaign remains consistent and that the players are entertained through immersion in your world. I don't think you can do that well by hand waving away a PCs primary story and motivation. The world should be a living breathing place, and players should be allowed to forge their character's stories to the extent that it is not disruptive to the rest of the group.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;954345One of my players wants his character to break off from the party because of character disputes and pursue his own goal. He has an evil sentient sword that he wants to quest to try and somehow turn it into a force for good. The rest of the party wants to destroy it before it corrupts him.
With his character gone, he will then introduce a new character that fits better with the party.
This sounds fine to me.
But then I thought about it: doing miscellaneous activities during downtime, "off screen," is one thing, but shouldn't something that is basically an adventure in its own right be carried out in play?
Or is it normal to just have that happen in the background? It seems like a waste to have it just happen as a handwave during downtime, though it would certainly take a while in game-time.
How would you guys handle it?
This is the kind of thing that makes keeping accurate campaign time so important. Keeping accurate tabs on everyone's whereabouts is also key. If Sword Boy leaves town two weeks ahead of the rest of the group, heads north to some ancient shrine and so on, then he's not likely to run into the party when they've headed south. However, in a sandbox, all kinds of screwy things can happen and all kinds of detours can be taken so there's always a possibility they could meet up even if they're not actually looking for one another.
That said, this kind of side trek is a great idea to set aside for sessions when some players can't make it. Sword Boy can be like Gendry on
Game of Thrones: We haven't seen him in a while but he's still out there rowing somewhere and when it's convenient, we'll pick up with him where we left off. The other players can play new PCs rolled up just for this scenario, Sword Boy's followers (if any), NPCs or even monsters. As a player and DM I always enjoyed the occasional change of pace.
Interesting.
We don't play that often, so I never thought of doing side sessions; my players are busier than I am typically too. However, that might be the most fulfilling way to do it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;954794I'm 100% sure he wants that guy back later with the sword.
Basically the problem for him is he wants to quest to purify the evil sword, but the party doesn't want to take the detour since it'll be a big quest by itself, and would prefer to get rid of the sword.
So rather than get rid of the sword he wants to have the character go off and purify the sword and come back later.
If I had the time, I'd run a separate game in the same world for that player so the character could go on his own quest. Meanwhile I'd let him bring a new 1st-level (or game-system equivalent of 1st level) character into the original game. But our character death and retirement rate is such that you likely wouldn't have that many levels discrepancy between the new character and the veterans. I wouldn't let anyone bring a magic item unearned in the game or start at a higher level than 1st.
WOTC has up a new UA article on new ways to do downtime.
http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA_Downtime.pdf (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA_Downtime.pdf)
Is sword boy role playing his his charcter well? Or power gaming and unwilling to give up a magic item? Expecting handwavium to allow him to keep his toy.
Sounds like he's a role player. But you would know.
Still converting an evil sword? That sounds like a year or two of ingame time.