Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olaf the Stout" data-source="post: 4007451" data-attributes="member: 13703">RC,In response to your post, yes there is a chance that this situation could have been resolved by talking to all the players.  However I really think that the quitting player just couldn't deal with playing in a world where it was possible PC could have a dinosaur as an animal companion.  To him that type of world was just too far "out there" for him to continue playing.  I think he was after a more "traditional" medieval stye game.In hindsight I should have discussed the new PC with the other players first before introducing him into the game.  I'll make sure that I do that in the future.  While the player of the Druid might have been a bit annoyed about it, I imagine that he would have agreed to modify his character a bit or play a completely different PC if it made the rest of the group happy.  I'm pretty busy and the group only gets together once a fortnight to play.  I really didn't expect to have to make sure that everyone was happy with a player playing pretty much a core PC. (Yes the dinosaur animal companion was from the MM3.  However, the Druid player could have just as easily picked a dinosaur from the MM if he wanted to make it totally core.)  Obviously, based on the reaction of one of the players I was wrong about that.  I'll try to be more careful about it in the future.Oh, I imagine that the power-gaming aspect of it may have had a bit to do with it.  The character was very effective.  As I said, I spoke to the Druid's player immediately after the session about it (the other players had already left).  The other player quit via an e-mail the next day so I didn't really have an opportunity to speak to him about the fact that the Druid's player being willing to tone down his character.Yes, the Druid character was the strongest PC in the party.  However, the PC the player had previously, a Fighter specialising in Archery, was also probably the strongest PC in the party before that so it wasn't that the player suddenly went from playing an weak character to a strong one.  He has always had a (mechanically) stong character.  The Druid's player has fun by picking a theme he wants to make and making effective charcter from that.What gets me is that at the beginning of the game I allowed the quitting player play a "very" non-standard character.  He had a character been cursed by a Wizard that resulted in him having 2 personalities stuck in the one body.  One personality was the real personality, a rude, crude, intimidating magic-hating Barbarian/Rogue (being rude to a powerful mage is what got him cursed in the first place).  The other personality (created by the mage as punishment) was a weak and cowardly Sorcerer.Basically he had 2 separate characters living in the one body.  The only thing that they really shared was that when one character lost HP's, so did the other.  Initially the Sorcerer had almost total control.  The Barbarian/Rogue only took over when the Sorcerer got into a stressful situation.  However as the character(s) went up in levels I allowed the Barbarian/Rogue to exert more influence, making Will saves to see if he could take over the body.  Eventually, as the game progressed and the PC's tried a couple of things to "solve" the problem I allowed the character to switch between the 2 personalities as a standard action.  This meant that he could sometimes benefit from having the ability of a Sorcerer at the beginning of combat and the Barbarian/Rogue abilities later in the combat.So for me to allow the quitting player to play a very non-standard character, then quit because of a PC riding a dinosaur smacks a bit of double standards to me.  The other players were happy for him to play a non-standard character at the beginning of the campaign, yet he isn't happy for someone to play a character that is pretty much core later in the campaign.  Yes, it may not have been something that he necessarily would have wanted in a game he ran, but was it really that much of an impost on him that he couldn't go along with it, just like the other players had done for him at the start of the campaign.  To quit a game mid-adventure, ending a campaign in the process, seems a bit selfish to me.Olaf the Stout</blockquote>

Verification