D&D General Character Swapping - How Much Player Agency

[Clint_L]

We did have a session 0 - we always do - as well as another mini-session 0 when we onboarded a new player. One of the things we agreed on was that players are not confined to one character - if they want a change, then that is not a problem as long as they give me sufficient notice. So this player wanting to swap out for a bit is not in itself an issue. It's just that the way he wants to do it really impinges on another player's character, and the rest of the party to some degree, as well as making a lot of assumptions about stuff he doesn't know.

Again, I emphasize that this is not a problem player - he's great to play with! It's just a problematic situation.

As for having a conversation with the other player: 100%, and that's what I recommended to him right away. However, in further reflecting, and after considering feedback from many of you, I sent this follow-up:

Follow-up: one concern I keep coming back to is that this new character seems to be built specifically for Dorg’s story arc. It’s important that [Dorg's player] be the primary driver of his character’s story. So for Dagen to work, he has to have his own reason for existing, he can’t be written specifically about Dorg.

Is your reason for creating him simply because you want a break from Jeremy? Because if so, create a character doing his own thing, with his own motivations. We can then figure out a reason for him to join the party. Don’t worry about the ongoing story; it’s always changing anyway.

 

[Clint_L]

What the hell, here's some background so you can understand the plot dynamics, if interested:

Setting: Matt Mercer's Exandria (with many of my own adaptations and expansions). A few years after The Mighty Nein's main story.

The player's original character: Jeremy, a by-the-book paladin from Wildemount who is driven to learn what became of the knight who rescued him from an orphanage and raised Jeremy as his squire. Recent leads have suggested that this knight vanished on some sort of quest involving The Chained Oblivion, and that Jeremy might be able to learn more in the Holy City of Vassalheim.

The other player's character: Dorg, a dwarf barbarian from Kraghammer, in Tal'Dorei. As a young dwarf, Dorg was a zealous member of a xenophobic faction of dwarves led by Lord Nostoc Greyspine - a sort of dwarf brownshirt, essentially. However, when he began to question those values, Dorg was mercilessly beaten down, had his strength drained from him by some sort of powerful magic, and was left for dead. He was rescued by female fire giant, Brimshild Ironbane, who forged magical gauntlets (ogre power) that returned his strength (the players started at level 3 with one uncommon magical item). She also apprenticed him at her forge, where he found a new direction and purpose. Later, adventuring with the party, he discovered an immensely important cultural artifact, the legendary Hammer of Moradin, in its dormant state. Since acquiring it, visions have shown him some dread force capturing Brimshild, so he is heading back to Kraghammer, where the Hammer was forged, to try to unlock its secrets and find a way to save her. Recent clues have indicated a link between another issue the party has been handling and Lord Greyspine, and have alluded to Greyspine having a new advisor, "Lady Kaer," who has been pushing him to take the city.

What the player's don't know: "Lady Kaer" is the dwarfish form of the red dragon Kaerthalyx Cinderborn, an offspring of Thordak the Cinder King, who is manipulating Greyspine to take control of Kraghammer for her own vengeful purposes. She has captured the mastersmith Brimshild as part of her efforts to build up a magical armoury and take control of the region.

So it is likely that whatever happens in Kraghammer ultimately leads the party deeper into the Underdark and a confrontation with Kaerthalyx.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, so your players are not able to separate IC vs OOC knowledge, that's your playstyle. I am not one of the 'my playstyle is the only one' types, so that's fine for your table. What's not 'so obvious' to you is that there are people who do keep IC vs OOC knowledge separate and play accordingly,

It's utterly impossible to ignore something you know, when that something holds any relevance to anything. Once you know it, you can't un-know it.

The only possible way to not know something is ti, yes, not know it.

and in my experience that's vastly more common, and is the way I generally like to play games. A game where the players know lots of things about each others backstories but the characters don't, and they roleplay revealing secrets to each other can be a lot of fun, and the idea of dismissing it to the extent so say it 'so obvious'ly cannot be done is just bizarre to me.

Which merely serves to make the 'reveal' a fake experience. Sure the character gets that 'Aha!' moment, but the player does not and so you're not going to get a true reaction.

A player making a new character to start a conflict with another player's character is clearly PvP not CvC under this distinction, the character was created to have the conflict with the other player from the start. Telling me 'oh I-as-player clearly don't have anything against you-as-player, I just made a new character who turns up and sticks a knife into your character, it's what my character [who I just chose to create] would do' does not pass the smell test.

If done maliciously, sure.

I've had players, though, who did this to each other just for kicks, laughing (and entertaining the rest of us to no end!) all the way.

I've also had numerous situations where it was an existing character in the party - usually after a Detect-xxxx spell or two - sticking a knife into the new one.

That doesn't sound like a D&D game I'd want to play in. A game where people make up new characters, fling them into hostilities with the group, then roll another one and do it again sounds to me like a game that's wasting a bunch of time not actually driving a story or engaging in interesting gameplay, just having some problem player entertain themselves by harassing another player.

"Driving the story" is what happens when nothing else is going on. If they want to spend the session on in-party feuding I'm quite happy to let 'em do so, the adventure can always wait till next session...

And sure, it's maybe not for everyone. That said, if it's what the characters would do to an NPC then the same should happen to a PC.

Though in practice it's probably all solved by talking like adults. Note that the OP absolutely did not take your stance in the actual situation, he pushed back on the new PC having secret knowledge and on the brand new PC having a situation putting them at odds with the existing PC with a built-in advantage.

On the OP's specific situation, were I the DM I'd likely have pushed back as well, for two reasons: one, the player isn't supposed to know what he obviously does know and I'd raise a bit of hell about that; and two, ordering someone else's character around is highly likely to end both quickly and badly - is the player of the new character prepared for some serious pushback, to the point of having another new character ready to rock when this one gets chucked out or killed.

 

[Lanefan]

Secrets are phenomenally more fun when the characters don't know them, but all the players do.

When one takes the stance, as I do, that player knowledge = character knowledge, these are no longer secrets.

That way you can actually play around them with intention, as a whole table. When only one player knows, it tends to end up more confusing than functional.

Hard to see how. IME only one player knowing a secret adds to the intrigue, and also serves to actually keep it a secret.

Sharing these things, as it happens, also helps prevent potential issues like the one at the top of this thread.

Frm what I can tell, it was the between-players sharing of secrets that directly caused the OP's issues. If Dereg's player had never known Dorg's secret, Dereg's character concept could not have arisen in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

The player's original character: Jeremy, a by-the-book paladin ...

Now we know why the player wants a new character.....

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

We did have a session 0 - we always do - as well as another mini-session 0 when we onboarded a new player. One of the things we agreed on was that players are not confined to one character - if they want a change, then that is not a problem as long as they give me sufficient notice. So this player wanting to swap out for a bit is not in itself an issue. It's just that the way he wants to do it really impinges on another player's character, and the rest of the party to some degree, as well as making a lot of assumptions about stuff he doesn't know.

Again, I emphasize that this is not a problem player - he's great to play with! It's just a problematic situation.

As for having a conversation with the other player: 100%, and that's what I recommended to him right away. However, in further reflecting, and after considering feedback from many of you, I sent this follow-up:

Follow-up: one concern I keep coming back to is that this new character seems to be built specifically for Dorg’s story arc. It’s important that [Dorg's player] be the primary driver of his character’s story. So for Dagen to work, he has to have his own reason for existing, he can’t be written specifically about Dorg.

Is your reason for creating him simply because you want a break from Jeremy? Because if so, create a character doing his own thing, with his own motivations. We can then figure out a reason for him to join the party. Don’t worry about the ongoing story; it’s always changing anyway.

I assume the Player's all know about Dorg's dormant hammer. It's okay, it happens to a lot of adventurers.

If the two Players talk about this, do you think Dorg's Player will reject it? I think you should encourage this kind of behavior. If you shut this down now, this behavior of exploring each other's contributions to the story by adopting them and incorporating them into our own contributions, then you may never see it again (but you're a teacher and already appreciate this). I feel like you're hedging in your follow-up--be careful.

Bottom line, Jeremy's Player needs to talk to Dorg's Player. Has this happened yet? Maybe you just approach Dorg's Player about this.

 

[Clint_L]

This wasn't really a sharing of secrets so much as an adventuring party getting to know each other, discovering the Hammer of Moradin together, etc. In game time, they've been together for more than a year and have been through a lot!

 

[Clint_L]

If the two Players talk about this, do you think Dorg's Player will reject it? I think you should encourage this kind of behavior. If you shut this down now, this behavior of exploring each other's contributions to the story by adopting them and incorporating them into our own contributions, then you may never see it again (but you're a teacher and already appreciate this). I feel like you're hedging in your follow-up--be careful.

My follow-up is because I remained uncomfortable with Dagen being built in a way that essentially started to take charge of Dorg's story - i.e. he was coming in with all this mysterious knowledge of the party in general and Dorg in particular, and even planning to become Dorg's protector.

So yes, that would at least involve a conversation between the players...but then I began to doubt even that. After all, the other player hasn't initiated any of this and seems really into their current character arc. So if another player is suddenly suggesting to involve themselves in this way, it puts Dorg's player in an uncomfortable position. Maybe he really wants to say "no thanks," but doesn't want to hurt any feelings, for example.

As DM, I would feel much better about it if Jeremy's player just said, "Hey, I want to put Jeremy on hold for a bit - here's my idea for a fill-in character. This is why he's an adventurer, and some interests that might intersect with those of the party. In fact, if you look back at my OP, that's what I basically suggest - the most I would give him is a vision that there's something important about Dorg. But on top of that, I want to know more about Dagen's own motivations. What drives him? What challenges him? What's his conflict? For example, maybe he's a dwarf from the progressive faction, and he's worried about the growing strength of the xenophobes. And maybe he's too stuck in this history of factional conflicts to see the bigger picture developing.

Edit: My campaigns are always character-driven. Specifically, not only do I mine backstories for plot hooks, I really try to create situations where characters are forced to confront their own flaws, and navigate the tension between what they want and what they need. So I want this new character to have their own reasons for existing in the story.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I wonder what the extremes are here?

One extreme seems to (nearly) be the status quo: Each Player has a Character that represents their contribution to the story. Any connections between Players must be mutual.

Another extreme is Lanefan's game.

What other extremes can we come with? Strictly as a way to understand the broader scope of this subject, not just this particular issue with Jeremy, Drog, and Dagen.

 

[Xamnam]

Hard to see how. IME only one player knowing a secret adds to the intrigue, and also serves to actually keep it a secret.

To address the one point that is less opinion, if someone is acting mysteriously, other players are rather incentivized to figure out what's going on. Secrets, at best, hold a decent chance of bringing complications and problems to the party, even if they are not so far as to be actively at cross purposes. If you are worried about party success and health, you shouldn't ignore them. However, because the other players lack any context for which possible direction it is going, they stand a terribly good chance of interacting with it in ways that are actively detrimental to the desired outcome and/or the enjoyment of the player.

Intrigue will for the most part only last as long as the other players leave it alone, which is far more likely if they are aware OOC of what the general arc of it is.

Even better, if you're OOC aware, you can pointedly ignore it when it is fun to do so, allowing it to have a much longer and fuller life in prompting play.