Disposition of Retired PCs

GlassEye · May 4, 2012

This is something I've been mulling over for a while and with recent character retirements brought back to the forefront of my mind:

What do we do with retired PCs?

Obviously, they become NPCs. How can they be used? Does anyone have the right to use them as NPCs? How much influence should the NPCs former player have on the ultimate disposition of these NPCs? If used as an NPC that accompanies a smaller adventuring party what division of experience & treasure should be used?

I like the idea and think it is perfectly acceptable to say 'X goes off and does this,' when retiring your character. I think, however, that once a character is retired it should be open to the community to use as an NPC however that person sees fit. In other words, I don't think that retired PC should be the exclusive domain of the person who created that PC. I feel that retired PC should have an NPC entry made on the wiki with a link to the character sheet.

I'm uncertain about experience and treasure division for NPCs. Maybe that's already covered in the rules somewhere that I don't know about and someone can hopefully chime in about that if it is. Otherwise, I think I'd like to hear a few comments about it since my thoughts on the subject aren't very solid atm.

DalkonCledwin · May 4, 2012

I was actually thinking of it this way... if a former Player Character that is now retired is accompanying a group of current Player Characters, but that retired Player Character is being controlled by the GM, then it stands to reason in my opinion that if the GM in question wants to advance that character in level or something that the GM should apply their Credits towards that character instead of granting the character a split of the actual player characters encounter based XP. Otherwise it would be very tempting to start bringing along really high level retired PC's on adventures with lots of low level PC's which in my opinion kind of defeats the entire purpose of these types of characters.

I also like the idea of having a retired character move on from adventuring and pursuing some other activity elsewhere in the world where it doesn't by necessity have to interact with the characters but where it can still come in and serve as a plot device from time to time, such as hiring adventurers on occasion.

This is actually something I have been thinking about more recently as I am thinking I may possibly retire Veniarus. As while I love him and he was my first character on here, I am kind of wanting to try other possible characters out and want to see where things lead me. So I have been thinking about that for a bit of time now.

Maidhc O Casain · May 4, 2012

I like the system in LEW, where the person retiring the character can specify whether or not the retired character is available for use by others. There is a hard and fast rule that no one other than the "owner" of the retired character can kill him off (EDIT: without permission). And there's a BIG part of me that says that Pari is, indeed, my property whether he's retired or not. I made him, I decided what adventures he'd go on and how he developed and grew.

Part of my thought process regarding plans for Pari are whether or not to make him available to others. I do have plans for an adventure that could turn into a series of adventures in one setting, and it would be very convenient for me to have Pari available to use as part of the hook. That may not be possible if others take him to write him into another story.

I'm undecided as to including NPCs in the XP/GP split. I do think it needs to be a "both or nothing" thing, as otherwise it throws off our wealth by level balance. Including an NPC in an adventure will make encounters less challenging - this makes me think that they should get their split of the XP/GP. However, if that's the case, shouldn't the PCs have a choice in whether or not the NPC is included?

Systole · May 4, 2012

I think retired PCs become NPCs. I'd expect that a GM would be respectful enough to clear it with the original player first, but a retired PC has left an imprint on E'n that shouldn't just go away.

For what it's worth, Benevolent Seeker started out as a PC but never got off the ground, and I was happy to move him over to NPC. And if Sylla ever jumps off the slippery slope from chaotic neutral to full-blown chaotic evil (as she sometimes seems precariously close to doing), then I hope she'll make a good NPC antagonist for some PCs someday.

Qik · May 4, 2012

I would be inclined to side with the view that the creator of the PC should at least have the initial say as to the availability of that character - I can imagine scenarios where someone wouldn't want a character up for general community use. I'd see it more of as an initial decision, like Mowgli said LEW has: upon retiring, the player says whether the PC is available or not, and if so, then he's up for grabs.

sunshadow21 · May 5, 2012

I've actually had to deal with something similar to this as a DM with a deceased character. I wanted to use him as a catalyst to drive an adventure, and asked the original player politely if I could do so. For retired characters, I would say that at the very least, the original player has say for a decent period of time before the character becomes common property, at least a year, as long as the player is still active with LPF.

sunshadow21 · May 5, 2012

One idea if the ultimate decision is to not make it permanently in the control of the player would be something like x(I'd say either 2 or 3) number of months/level before it becomes free game, DMs can use DMCs to extend that time period for any of their own retired characters, and any character that is retired because of max level is permanently in the hands of the player. This rewards player and DM involvement while allowing the retired characters to still have a presence in the world.

IronWolf · May 5, 2012

I think the player should have the choice as to whether to offer up their retired character as an NPC for anyone to use (I am even fine with them selectively allowing it). It is all to easy for someone to tarnish a player's retired character by using it as an NPC in a manner that is not befitting of the character (whether intentionally or through simply not having a good feel for the character). I think the player of the original character should have the right to choose who (if anyone) he lets play the character in retirement.

As for NPCs and the cut of gold. I am pretty sure we had a long discussion about this in the general thread (another reason I dislike any discussion of length being covered there, as I am now too lazy to go actually find the posts). I believe the consensus was that the NPCs get a cut of the gold and experience. They were present, lessening the difficulty of the encounter and therefore get a cut of the gold and experience.

GlassEye · May 5, 2012

I'm ok with allowing the player of the retired character the option of declaring the now NPC open or closed. I still think an NPC sheet should be created for the character with a notation whether it is open or closed and a link to the full sheet.

I'm ok with NPCs taking a share of xp and gold.

I am concerned that a closed NPC that still gets xp and gold is just a way to get extra characters but then again they would be limited in what they could be involved with. In addition, it would be next to impossible to judge the intent behind that sort of action.

Like in LEW, I think the open/closed concept should be expanded to character backgrounds. I can't think of any reason to close my character backgrounds but then I'm fairly sure not everyone wants their PC background mucked around with. It would be nice to know where that boundary is.

Could we get some votes?

Open/Closed NPCs: YES
Full XP & GP for NPCs: Edit: MAYBE pending clarification/resolution of further discussion
Open/Closed PC background: YES

Satin Knights · May 6, 2012

For those that are using the Person template in their NPCs on the wiki, I have added a "| npc_usage =" text field.

I suggest the text should be something like:
"Open to GMs and players" for Grog, Marla and the like,
"Open to GMs" for the likes of Phedilo Crea,
"Ask GlassEye" for one of his creations or
"Closed" for those that want to keep their creations private.

The first occurrence is on Jacus and can be tweaked for layout or position.

For the character sheets themselves, we need to pick a place to document the NPC and background status. The Basic Info block at the top is one good place (my choice), or in the Approvals block at the bottom.

Looking over the vote request, it looks like I should add a similar line for backgrounds.

As to voting:
Open/Closed NPCs: YES. Default is closed if the NPC is not marked. It will take us a little time to catch up on marking our creations, but it is the only option that doesn't lead to later issues.

Full XP & GP for NPCs: Ermm, I want partial here. They are supposed to be retired. I see the argument for wanting accounting simplicity, but GE's concerns are speaking louder to me than him. For the moment, Uncommitted.

Open/Closed PC background: YES. Again, Default is closed.