Mercule
Adventurer
Hmm... I saw two things "wrong" in what you were telling.
1) The strong use of player knowledge by the elf.
2) The level vs. the power level.
Even one artifact at 3rd level is absurd. Moving right along, though -- since nothing in the action is bad, just the character level IMHO.
Yeah, the elf sounds like she was acting on meta-game info. It happens to the best of us. It's especially likely in less experienced players. IME, no one ever really gets "pure roleplaying competency", no matter how much they want it. Game reasons always influence play. Few players ever become strongly disposed to it, and almost none in less than five years.
On the other hand, I know of a couple of groups that think nothing of cracking open the DMG or MM as players during the game. The idea is that it levels the playing field for the 20 year players who have DMed regularly and the newbies (newerbies?). Not the sort of game I think I'd enjoy, but it's a valid play style.
Everyone in my group is pretty good friends, so my thoughts are slanted with that assumption. If the charter for your group is implicitly a roleplay/dramatist center, then you might want to bring it up to the elf-player. Maybe discuss it as a group, "Hey, guys, I've been thinking. What kind of game do we really want? Some guys on-line were talking about group charters and how they help set expectations."
When I say "charter", I'm not really talking about a formal document (although some people have one). I'm talking about the core assumptions on which the game is based. These include things like roleplay vs. gamism; DM-as-god or concensual development; etc. Most times, groups work just fine with everything left as unspoken assumptions. Some groups have the core assumption of DM-as-god and the DM sets all other aspects of the charter by fiat. Sometimes the charter needs to have an issue formally discussed.
Regardless, the player should be allowed to create a new character. Anything else is just plain mean-spirited. If the DM works out something that might allow a jail-break (so to speak) then an interim character would be fine. I've always read the Void as being dead, no chance of resurrection, just waiting for your body to figure it out; and would treat a character hit by it accordingly.
My wife had to play a _blind_ character for a month and she was so bored doing so that she didn't even attend the fourth session. Playing a dead character would not dignify attendance the first session (or maybe ever).
If was playing in the game and the DM required the player in question to continue playing the voided character, I would object in the strongest possible terms, whether or not I was the player in question.
If another _player_ suggested it, or especially if they pouted over it, I'd consider the player to be hostile. Me being me, I'd probably try and figure out what sort of chip he had on his shoulder. Still, if the player wasn't cooperative or managed to sway the rest of the group, I'd probably consider the group to be not worth playing in.
As far as the DM showing favoritism, nothing you posted indicates anything of the sort (which is a far cry from saying that it doesn't exist). I know that as DM, I used to make an extreme effort to avoid favoritism for my wife, which has even resulted in her being treated _harsher_ than the other players (as one of them pointed out). It does take some getting used to before you avoid going too far in either direction. In my case, a few years of regular DMing.
Okay, short answers:
1) Did the elf act on "player knowledge"?
Yeah, probably. So have you, I'm sure. She might even do it more often than you. If she's making a reasonable effort, cut her some slack. If she's not, talk to her.
2) Should she play the voided character?
Are you on drugs? If it's the DM trying to get her to do so, you should never complain about favoritism again. In fact, you should tell your DM that he's gone a bit too far the other direction.
If you are trying to push for it, grow up. Treat her reasonably and with some respect. If you aren't trying to be hostile with the suggestion, then I genuinely apologize. It really sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder, though, I have haven't any patience for player v. player vandettas.
3) Is the DM showing some favoritism?
Dunno. No evidence. I'd suggest giving him a certain amount of leeway, especially if he isn't the only or regular DM in the group. It sometimes takes a bit to grow into referreeing your spouse/SO fairly. If you think he's going overboad, _talk_ to him. It sounds like you've known him for something like 20 years. If you can't have a conversation with him how good of a friend is he?
1) The strong use of player knowledge by the elf.
2) The level vs. the power level.
Even one artifact at 3rd level is absurd. Moving right along, though -- since nothing in the action is bad, just the character level IMHO.
Yeah, the elf sounds like she was acting on meta-game info. It happens to the best of us. It's especially likely in less experienced players. IME, no one ever really gets "pure roleplaying competency", no matter how much they want it. Game reasons always influence play. Few players ever become strongly disposed to it, and almost none in less than five years.
On the other hand, I know of a couple of groups that think nothing of cracking open the DMG or MM as players during the game. The idea is that it levels the playing field for the 20 year players who have DMed regularly and the newbies (newerbies?). Not the sort of game I think I'd enjoy, but it's a valid play style.
Everyone in my group is pretty good friends, so my thoughts are slanted with that assumption. If the charter for your group is implicitly a roleplay/dramatist center, then you might want to bring it up to the elf-player. Maybe discuss it as a group, "Hey, guys, I've been thinking. What kind of game do we really want? Some guys on-line were talking about group charters and how they help set expectations."
When I say "charter", I'm not really talking about a formal document (although some people have one). I'm talking about the core assumptions on which the game is based. These include things like roleplay vs. gamism; DM-as-god or concensual development; etc. Most times, groups work just fine with everything left as unspoken assumptions. Some groups have the core assumption of DM-as-god and the DM sets all other aspects of the charter by fiat. Sometimes the charter needs to have an issue formally discussed.
Regardless, the player should be allowed to create a new character. Anything else is just plain mean-spirited. If the DM works out something that might allow a jail-break (so to speak) then an interim character would be fine. I've always read the Void as being dead, no chance of resurrection, just waiting for your body to figure it out; and would treat a character hit by it accordingly.
My wife had to play a _blind_ character for a month and she was so bored doing so that she didn't even attend the fourth session. Playing a dead character would not dignify attendance the first session (or maybe ever).
If was playing in the game and the DM required the player in question to continue playing the voided character, I would object in the strongest possible terms, whether or not I was the player in question.
If another _player_ suggested it, or especially if they pouted over it, I'd consider the player to be hostile. Me being me, I'd probably try and figure out what sort of chip he had on his shoulder. Still, if the player wasn't cooperative or managed to sway the rest of the group, I'd probably consider the group to be not worth playing in.
As far as the DM showing favoritism, nothing you posted indicates anything of the sort (which is a far cry from saying that it doesn't exist). I know that as DM, I used to make an extreme effort to avoid favoritism for my wife, which has even resulted in her being treated _harsher_ than the other players (as one of them pointed out). It does take some getting used to before you avoid going too far in either direction. In my case, a few years of regular DMing.
Okay, short answers:
1) Did the elf act on "player knowledge"?
Yeah, probably. So have you, I'm sure. She might even do it more often than you. If she's making a reasonable effort, cut her some slack. If she's not, talk to her.
2) Should she play the voided character?
Are you on drugs? If it's the DM trying to get her to do so, you should never complain about favoritism again. In fact, you should tell your DM that he's gone a bit too far the other direction.
If you are trying to push for it, grow up. Treat her reasonably and with some respect. If you aren't trying to be hostile with the suggestion, then I genuinely apologize. It really sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder, though, I have haven't any patience for player v. player vandettas.
3) Is the DM showing some favoritism?
Dunno. No evidence. I'd suggest giving him a certain amount of leeway, especially if he isn't the only or regular DM in the group. It sometimes takes a bit to grow into referreeing your spouse/SO fairly. If you think he's going overboad, _talk_ to him. It sounds like you've known him for something like 20 years. If you can't have a conversation with him how good of a friend is he?
