Abandoned by Rogue

[Dirty Magurdy]

Ok. I am DMing a 3.5 Scarred Lands campaign. My players' group is comprised of 12th and 13th level characters and there are a total of six of them - 13th level dwarven rogue, 13th level human bard, 13th level human sorceress, 13th level human fighter4/cleric9, 12th level dwarven fighter, 12th level halfling fighter4/rogue8.

The group has discovered the location of a hidden cache of magic belonging to a powerful draconic race who once inhabited most of the continent they currently reside on (asaathi for those of you familiar with the setting). The group has been travelling on an underground river for 5 days, dealing with small waterfalls and various subterranean encounters, and dealing with some squabbling amongst the party that has been near boiling the last few sessions.
Now, they have reached the point in their journey where it's time to leave the river and find the close-by entrance to this long-forgotten cache. However, on the "front porch" of the dungeon the party's squabbles have re-surfaced and the group's rogue has decided he's finished travelling with the party as a party member. He's offered to draw up a contract and earn pay to negotiate traps in the dungeon, but as a mercenary and not as a full party member. He wants to be paid 50,000 gold to handle traps for the group, but will not take part in combat unless he's physically threatened. If he dies he's to be raised etc... He wrote up a pretty extensive contrac and the party, nearly to a man, rejected the offer.

Now, all that's well and good, they're high enough level and have enough resources to handle the dungeon (even though it is pretty trap heavy and nasty) without their rogue; but what I'm seeking advice on is the character/player of the rogue. The player has publicly said that his rogue will leave the group and he'll take a time off of gaming and when the group finishes this dungeon-crawl he'll create a new character to join the group. I've no problem with that, my dilemma comes in his outlines for what he wants to do with his rogue while the group is in the dungeon crawl. He wants to basically camp/hide just outside the dungeon entrance and wait for the party to die or wait for other events that he might use to his advantage.

The party may be in this dungeon for days, provided they find safe places to hole up and rest. He has sent me e-mails with a luandry list of things to do filled with possible scenarios and reactions such as "If X happens to party my character will do this..." The problem is he isn't physically at the session, so he can have his character in that advantageous position without having to deal with the dangers such as random encounters and traffic around the area he's in (or the possibility of being spotted by his party), or patrolls of monsters who dwell within this dungeon area. And if I mention something along the lines of you know, you sit outside of an active place like this you're going to hit some encounters, he responds that he'll be hidden.

Initially I handled this by telling him that, your character quit the party so he's essentially out of the game, you've forfeited him, get to work on your new guy and I'll decide what's to be done with your old character. But he counters that his character might come back if the party decides to boot another party member out or if the party member he dislikes leaves (the fighter/cleric).
So basicly I have a rogue player staking out the party just outside of the dungeon, but because he's not at the game session his character's really not in any jeopardy. I'm looking for ways to deal with this. Have a few ideas but am hoping you guys might have some suggestions. I suppose just telling him that if his character is on-scene he needs to be present at the session might handle this. Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You might want to post this in the general forums. Any solutions likely won't have much to do with game rules, and you'll have more peopel to help you there.

Could you give some examples of what his various contingencies are? Does it mostly seem to be some sort of "harmless" scavengering where if the party should die, he can swoop in to get all their stuff and retire forever rich? That kind of thing won't really matter then. If the party walks out in fine health, he'll have to slither away. If they do die in there, he might die trying to go looting, too. And when they roll up new characters they'd have entirely new sets of gear anyway.

The problem is if he's actually looking to assault or steal from the party and hurt their progress. That kind of behavior should NOT be tolerated, and I really have no idea how someone could do that sort of thing and then have a new character join the party, and not expect all the other players to be royally pissed at him.

 

[irdeggman]

This sounds like a player to player conflict and not a PC to PC one.

If the PC is now an "NPC" by dropping his membership as a party member then he technically no longer earns any xp or at least not at the same rate as the rest of the party. If he wishes to remain out of danger then he specifically has excluded the character from ever earning any xp.

For the player to player conflict, it is time to have all the players talk to each about what is going on - not in character but as real people.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oh, also. One of the players is Fighter 4 / Rogue 8. I assume traps will be an issue because this player didn't bother with trap skills thinking the other PC would handle it?

Retraining is something it's up to a DM to allow. In this sort of situation, before they go off to the dungeon, I think it'd be entirely fair for that other orgue to take a day or two, or a week, or whatever. And really hone his skills at finding and disabling traps. In other words, let that player switch his skill points around if he's willing to, to better meet the group's needs since it's clear he's the only rogue they can rely on.

 

[udalrich]

The problem is he isn't physically at the session, so he can have his character in that advantageous position without having to deal with the dangers such as random encounters and traffic around the area he's in (or the possibility of being spotted by his party), or patrolls of monsters who dwell within this dungeon area. And if I mention something along the lines of you know, you sit outside of an active place like this you're going to hit some encounters, he responds that he'll be hidden.

So he's hidden. Last I checked, rogues didn't get an option to take 500 on their Hide checks. So somethings with a good Spot skill will see him. Hiding also won't beat Blindsense, Blindsight, Tremorsense or Scent. So he will have encounters. He can disagree with you, but he's the player and you're the GM. He can't win this argument with you unless you let him win.

That said, it does sound like there might be issues that need to be resolved out of character, between the players. It is possible that player has a lot going on in his life and needs to free up some time for other things, but making sure that everyone is having fun seems called for at the moment.

 

[Elethiomel]

If the player is fine with coming in with a new character, i don't see why everyone is assuming there are out-of-game issues between players. Sometimes characters clash. Yes, sometimes this is because players clash, but in my experience it's mostly because of in-character issues.

I do not get why a dissatisfied former group member being aggressive against the group he's left is behaviour that "should not be tolerated". Why would people be pissed off at the player for actions that made sense in character?

To the OP; Run the character as the player suggested. If he gets attacked he'll do all he can to escape and hide away again. If he can't, he fights. If the player comes back and is dissatisfied with the outcome, tell him "I ran him as you asked. I specifically asked what happens if there's an encounter, and you said he kept hiding. They spotted him. I extrapolated." Also, keep in mind that the character probably does not have perfect information on what is happening to the party, so he should probably have phrased his actions as, "If I hear/see X, I do Y", not "If X happens to the party, I do Y."

 

[Herzog]

He's either a PC or an NPC.

If he's a PC: what are your rules on unattending players? Is their character played by the DM? Is their character played by one of the other players? Does he 'fade into the background'?

Tell the player you'll do the same with his character. If he doesn't want that, he'll have to attend the sessions, even if he isn't active.

Otherwise, he's an NPC. And you can do with the character whatever you like (even if he doesn't like it)

IMO: you either retire a PC, or you don't. There isn't really a middle way.

 

[Humanaut]

If I read the post correctly, here's my two bits:

If he's still a PC, then he needs to be at sessions and will probably be harrassed by wandering monsters able to Spot him. Alone, without support, I see him dying alone in the dark. Does the PC really have the resources to survive alone AND take on the rest of the party? Perhaps a tactical talk will help him see a possible suicide mission he's on?

If this is a conflict of players rather than PC's, there may be other issues to be addressed sooner better than later.

As a DM I think PC roleplayed conflict can be fun, but mean backstabbing as a whole I do not take well... PC's murdered by fellow PC's come back as Revanents to avenge their deaths.

Good luck!

 

[aboyd]

Nevermind. Next post.

 

[aboyd]

Retraining is something it's up to a DM to allow. In this sort of situation, before they go off to the dungeon, I think it'd be entirely fair for that other orgue to take a day or two, or a week, or whatever. And really hone his skills at finding and disabling traps. In other words, let that player switch his skill points around if he's willing to, to better meet the group's needs since it's clear he's the only rogue they can rely on.

I dunno. I mean, if the DM wants to do that, then good suggestion.

I'm just thinking that the entire point of the game is to allow the players to have some choices & consequences. This sounds a very real-world scenario -- someone integral to a project buggers out at a bad moment, and the rest of the troops have to make do. Deal with adversity. It's kinda cool to try to do well in such constrained circumstances. At least to me.

Of course, one could argue that when a leader drops out and stops leading, you often find someone else takes over and does better than expected. Maybe in that sense, a little rejiggering is OK.

I would note that if you follow the rules for retraining as in the PHB 2, then the character can only re-do 4 skill points, and usually only on a level up. So you might allow it but then disallow additional retraining when they actually do level up. But it's your call. I'm just thinking out loud.