Character Suicide

[Miladoon]

I player wants you to retcon 2 sessions so he can change his class.

And,

Your player asked if he could kill his character so he could make a new one.

...

Let him. Don't let his actions delete the group's progress. No sense in making the rest of the group pay for his....uh....behavior. Remember, there is no rule that says they start back at the same level.

Personally, if I was the DM, they would be looking for another table.

 

[MwaO]

The real question are the ground rules of D&D. There are a few different methods, but 3 that determine most games:
1) The group as a whole decides how the rules work.
2) The DM tries to build consensus for how the rules work, but is willing to put his foot down if he decides it is necessary.
3) The DM simply says, here's how things go and that's that.

Okay, each of the methods has its benefits and flaws. The benefit of #1 is you get an idea of what your group wants and ultimately, if you can live with it, then it is more likely your group has fun. On the other hand, the advantages of #3 is that you can say, here are the lines. And there may be mysterious reasons for the lines. An example of this might be a campaign there are no divine classes. Why? Something you plan to explore during the campaign.

But what you don't want to do is leave options ambiguous. Can PCs come to the table with house rules? Well, that's a decision made before the game starts. Why after 2 games did the player suddenly decide to play this new class? That's something that has to happen either at the start of the game or when the table using the rules above, decides to re-open the debate.

It seems to me to be a very straightforward decision to state - "I don't want PCs to use rules outside the game when building PCs, no matter how rational or balanced they may be, simply because I don't want to get into that can of worms - I don't want to have to rule on every single house rule the players come up with because I have a limited amount of time to do DMing - part of which is getting something ready to play each time we get together. I'm sorry I was unclear that this was not a request, but a ground rule of my DMing the game. Please describe to me the elements of what makes this house rule attractive to you and lets see if we can use the rules already within the game to make it happen."

That might be the most effective way of making it happen - you're explaining why you don't want house rules as an option, you're offering to try to help them make the PC that they want to make, and making it clear that it is not a request, but rather a global rule of the game.

 

[delericho]

My group are in the process of switching to 5e and one of my players has asked me to ret con the last couple of games so he can make a new character with the homebrew "Blood Hunter" class.

I regularly give my players an opportunity to do a "character rebuild" - the only thing I ask is that they keep the core concept of the character intact, but they can change almost anything else. If we were switching editions, I would definitely allow this. (That said, I never switch editions in the middle of a campaign, so it's a moot point...)

But if the "Blood Hunter" class can't be made to fit with the character's previous "core concept", I would also say "no".

I tell him no and he asks if he can just kill himself to make a new character, i told him no...

I think this was a mistake - instead of saying "no", I think you should have said, "no, but you can retire this character to bring in a new one".

IMO, there's no benefit in trying to force a player to continue with a character he really doesn't like, and there's certainly no benefit in a rule that only character death allows a switch. If that character's story is done, write him out and bring in the replacement.

Having said all that...

If he does what do i do?

One of my rules is that players are expected to play "in good faith". That means not disrupting the game for everyone else, and in particular it means not suiciding a character just because things didn't work out for you. (This usually applies in the case where the player chose to roll his ability scores and then rolled poorly. The deal there is that if you choose to roll, you also choose to take the results of that roll.)

A player who violates that is almost certainly revealing himself as a problem player, in which case he would find himself uninvited from future games. (Though that's very much a nuclear option, and not one I've ever had to use. Peer pressure generally deals with such things, as does the understanding around the table that we're all adults and expected to act accordingly.)

 

[religon]

I largely agree with others. Retiring characters after the old college try is an expected part of the game. Suicide conflicts with the presumed self-interest of the character. Only through extended role-playing after tragedy would suicide be within the spirit of the game.

The "good faith" expectation to prevent game disruption is reasonable. Perhaps immediately retiring a newly rolled character invites a "sit-out-a-session" sanction to consider the necessity of accepting our capricious universe. Suicide without an established character motive might invite a "sit-out-three-play-sessions" sanction to contemplate the meaning of life.

 

[Maxperson]

1. His choice for his character to commit suicide not mine

If he wants to have his character kill himself or walk away from the group, he can. That's his choice, not yours.

2. The class, as far as i can see, is balanced but I do not want it in my world which as you stated is a valid point

If he wants to play a class which you don't want in your world, he can't. The answer is no, because that's your choice, not his.

3. He does not not enjoy playing his current class but would rather switch to "Blood Hunter"
4. Before you say "There are other classes that he has the option to play that's not homebrew", he has expressed that he doesnt want to play other classes besides his current and Blood Hunter
5. This is his first time playing any edition D&D and at the start made it clear I wanted them to pick from base races and classes

You made the expectations clear and he agreed to it. My question for you is, is this guy the kind of person who will fixate on one thing (blood hunter) and ignore other classes he might enjoy in order to try and get his way?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

The class isnt in the world and doesnt exist.

Before disallowing the class I recommend making sure that it can't fit into your world. Too often I've seen GMs squander buy-in from players by nixing a character element (race, class, etc.) for fairly superficial reasons (it's personally not their cup of tea, it has no precedent in the campaign, etc.) If the Blood Hunter is thematically a Ranger with different mechanics and it's a mechanically sound homebrewed class, allowing the player to bring in a new Blood Hunter or letting them switch their character to a Blood Hunter will give you an invested player at no cost.

 

[S'mon]

1. Let him retire (not kill) his PC and bring in a new one.

2. It's up to you what races & classes exist in your game. You're not under any moral obligation to let him bring in something other than what you previously said was allowed. It's him being obnoxious here, not you. You could help him create the concept using permitted materials, though - but usually players want to bring in obscure classes for some specific mechanical advantage; possibly it has some badly-designed and overpowering ability.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My group are in the process of switching to 5e and one of my players has asked me to ret con the last couple of games so he can make a new character with the homebrew "Blood Hunter" class. I have no issue with the class but i dont want to ret con the last couple of sessions. I tell him no and he asks if he can just kill himself to make a new character, i told him no although he really can and he might. If he does what do i do? The class isnt in the world and doesnt exist. Do i let him kill himself or say it cant happen.

I'm a bit confused here. If I am reading this correctly, you have a player who wants to get rid of his current character and then play another one who belongs to a class that isn't being included in your campaign?

 

[was]

...First, I would let him kill off his character if that is his choice. Before doing so, however, I'd explain that such an act does not give him the option of introducing a home-brewed character class into the campaign.

...Then, I would explain my desire to stick to the base classes and core rulebook while converting to a new system. If he does not relent, and I still wanted him in the group, I would politely invite him to take over as DM and run a campaign of his own design.

 

[Big J Money]

The character suicide is a red herring. You're not dealing with the core issue here: the homebrew class they want.

What are your reasons for not allowing the class? You'll need to mention them here if you want any opinions on that. I disagree with those who say "the campaign world is yours" unless all the players in the group have are clearly in agreement that they want to play a game where the campaign world belongs solely to the DM with no player input. Because clearly you and at least one player disagree on what should be in this campaign!